Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 8, 2020 | ט״ז בתמוז תש״פ

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Shabbat 124

The gemara brings several mishnayot that discuss muktze items and there is a debate whether these mishnayot were taught before the leniencies regarding muktze were put into effect or not? A utensil that is designated for permitted actions on Shabbat and one that is designated for forbidden actions, in what situations can each of these be carried? What is Rabbi Nechemia’s approach? Raba and Rava disagree about how to understand the debate between Rabbi Nechemia and tana kama. Broken utensils – can they be used on Shabbat and if so, how? There is a debate regarding this and within that there is a discussion about what types of broken utensils are they arguing about – ones that broke on Shabbat or before Shabbat? Is it an issue of nolad, something that didn’t exist before Shabbat as it was part of a whole before Shabbat and now it is broken?

ידו על כתף חבירו ויד חבירו על כתיפו ותולה ומפשיט

his hand on the shoulder of another, and the other’s hand on his shoulder, and suspends the lamb and flays its hide.

גלוסטרא דתנן נגר שיש בראשו גלוסטרא רבי יהושע אומר שומטה מן פתח זה ותולה בחבירו בשבת רבי טרפון אומר הרי הוא ככל הכלים ומיטלטל בחצר

The source for the thick end of a bolt is as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a bolt used in a door lock which has a thick end at the head of the bolt, Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may drag it from this doorway and hang it in another doorway on Shabbat, but he may not move it with his hands, because it was considered to be set-aside. Rabbi Tarfon says: It is like all the other utensils and may be moved in a courtyard.

מדוכה הא דאמרן אמר רבה ממאי דילמא לעולם אימא לך לאחר התרת כלים נשנו קנים טעמא מאי משום איעפושי בהאי פורתא לא מיעפש מקלות אפשר כרבי אלעזר

The case of a mortar is that which we said above. Rabba said: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps, actually I could say to you that these mishnayot were taught after permission to move utensils on Shabbat was adopted, and nevertheless, the prohibitions can be understood. With regard to the rods for the showbread, what is the reason that they are used? They are used due to concern that the bread will decay. In that brief period until the conclusion of Shabbat it will not decay. With regard to poles, why may they not be used on Passover eve? It is prohibited because it is possible to flay the lamb in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Use of the pole is superfluous, and therefore it is set-aside.

גלוסטרא כדרבי ינאי דאמר רבי ינאי בחצר שאינה מעורבת עסקינן רבי יהושע סבר תוך הפתח כלפנים דמי וקמטלטל מנא דבתים בחצר ורבי טרפון סבר תוך הפתח כלחוץ דמי ומנא דחצר בחצר קא מטלטל

In the case of the thick end of the bolt in the door, why was it prohibited to move it by hand? It was prohibited in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yanai, as Rabbi Yanai says: We are dealing with a courtyard for which a joining of courtyards [eiruv] was not established. Rabbi Yehoshua holds that inside the doorway is considered to be like inside the house, and therefore, he is moving utensils of the houses in the courtyard. Since there is no joining of the courtyards, one may not move a vessel from the house to the courtyard. And Rabbi Tarfon holds that inside the doorway is considered to be like outside the house, and therefore, he is moving utensils of the courtyard in the courtyard, which is permitted.

מדוכה רבי נחמיה היא:

With regard to a mortar, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who holds that a vessel may only be moved on Shabbat for the purpose of its designated use.

מתני׳ כל הכלים ניטלין לצורך ושלא לצורך רבי נחמיה אומר אין ניטלין אלא לצורך:

MISHNA: All vessels may be moved for a specific purpose and not for a specific purpose. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Vessels may only be moved for a specific purpose.

גמ׳ מאי לצורך ומאי שלא לצורך

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: For a specific purpose, and what is the meaning of: Not for a specific purpose?

אמר רבה לצורך דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך גופו שלא לצורך דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך מקומו ודבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו אין לצורך מקומו לא ואתא רבי נחמיה למימר ואפילו דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך גופו אין לצורך מקומו לא אמר ליה רבא לצורך מקומו שלא לצורך קרית ליה

Rabba said: For a specific purpose means: Moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use for the purpose of utilizing the object itself. Not for a specific purpose means: Moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use for the purpose of utilizing its place. And an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, yes, it is permitted; for the purpose of utilizing its place, no, it is prohibited. And Rabbi Neḥemya came to say: And even an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, moving it for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, yes; for the purpose of utilizing its place, no. Rava said to him: Do you call for the purpose of utilizing its place, not for a specific purpose? It is for a purpose.

אלא אמר רבא לצורך דבר שמלאכתו להיתר בין לצורך גופו בין לצורך מקומו שלא לצורך ואפילו מחמה לצל ודבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו אין מחמה לצל לא ואתא רבי נחמיה למימר ואפילו דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו אין מחמה לצל לא

Rather, Rava said: For a specific purpose means: Moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place. Not for a specific purpose means: Moving it even from the sun to the shade. And an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, yes, it is permitted; moving it from the sun to the shade, no, it is prohibited. And Rabbi Neḥemya came to say: Even an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, moving it for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, yes, it is permitted; moving it from the sun to the shade, no, it is prohibited.

יתיב רב ספרא ורב אחא בר הונא ורב הונא בר חנינא ויתבי וקאמרי לרבה אליבא דרבי נחמיה הני קערות היכי מטלטלינן אמר להו רב ספרא מידי דהוה אגרף של רעי

It is told that Rav Safra and Rav Aḥa bar Huna and Rav Huna bar Ḥanina sat together and they sat and they said: According to Rabba’s explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya that it is prohibited to move an object whose primary function is for a permitted use for the purpose of utilizing its place, these empty bowls, how do we carry them? Rav Safra said to them: You may move them, just as is the case of a chamber pot containing waste that may be moved because it is disgusting.

אמר ליה אביי לרבה למר אליבא דרבי נחמיה הני קערות היכי מטלטלינן להו אמר ליה רב ספרא חברין תרגמה מידי דהוה אגרף של רעי

Abaye said this same matter to Rabba: According to the Master’s explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, these empty bowls, how do we carry them? He said to him: Our colleague Rav Safra interpreted it: Just as is the case of a chamber pot.

איתיביה אביי מדוכה אם יש בה שום מטלטלין אותה ואם לאו אין מטלטלין אותה הכא במאי עסקינן מחמה לצל איתיביה ושוין שאם קצב עליו בשר שאסור לטלטלו הכא נמי מחמה לצל

Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: With regard to a mortar, if it has garlic in it, one may move it on Shabbat, and if not, one may not move it on Shabbat. According to Rava’s opinion that all utensils may be moved, why is it prohibited to move the mortar? Rava responded: With what we are dealing here? We are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade, which Rava prohibited. Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that if one cut meat on it for the purpose of the Festival that it is then prohibited to move it because there is no further need for it on the Festival. According to Rava’s opinion, all utensils may be moved. He answered him: Here, too, we are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade.

והא דתנן אין סומכין את הקדירה בבקעת וכן בדלת והא בקעת דביום טוב דבר שמלאכתו להיתר הוא אלמא דבר שמלאכתו להיתר בין לצורך גופו בין לצורך מקומו אסור התם מאי טעמא כיון דבשבת דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור הוא גזירה יום טוב אטו שבת

And Abaye raised another objection with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: One may not prop a pot with a piece of wood, and so too, one may not prop a door on a piece of wood. Isn’t a piece of wood on a Festival an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, since it is permitted to move it to light an oven? Apparently, there is an opinion that moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place is prohibited, and according to Rabba, even Rabbi Neḥemya does not hold that this is so. Rava answers: There, what is the reason for the prohibition? It is because on Shabbat it is an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use. Since the wood is set aside from use on Shabbat, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting moving it on a Festival, due to Shabbat.

וכי תימא שבת גופיה תישתרי דהא דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו שרי הני מילי היכא דאיכא תורת כלי עליו היכא דליכא תורת כלי עליו לא

And if you say: Moving the wood should be permitted on Shabbat itself because an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use is permitted both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, that assertion is rejected. This ruling, which permits moving an object whose primary use is prohibited, applies only in a case where the status of a vessel applies to it; in a case where the status of a vessel does not apply to it, no, it is prohibited.

ומי גזרינן והתנן משילין פירות דרך ארובה ביום טוב אבל לא בשבת

The Gemara asks: And do we issue decrees prohibiting actions on Festivals due to the fact that they are prohibited on Shabbat? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: One may drop fruits from the roof through a skylight on a Festival, but not on Shabbat. Apparently, the Sages do not prohibit on a Festival all of the actions that are prohibited on Shabbat.

ומי לא גזרינן והתנן אין בין יום טוב לשבת אלא אוכל נפש בלבד

The Gemara asks on the contrary: And do we not issue decrees on a Festival due to Shabbat? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: The only difference between a Festival and Shabbat is with regard to the preparation of food alone. In all other matters the Sages established that the halakhot of Shabbat and Festivals are the same.

אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר הא רבי יהושע דתניא אותו ואת בנו שנפלו לבור רבי אליעזר אומר מעלה את הראשון על מנת לשוחטו ושוחטו והשני עושה לו פרנסה במקומו בשביל שלא ימות רבי יהושע אומר מעלה את הראשון על מנת לשוחטו ואינו שוחטו ומערים ומעלה את השני רצה זה שוחט רצה זה שוחט

Rav Yosef says: This is not difficult. This mishna, which rules that it is prohibited, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer; that mishna, which rules that it is permitted, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As it was taught in a baraita: It is prohibited to slaughter a mother animal and its offspring on the same day, as it is stated: “You shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28). With regard to it and its offspring that fell into a pit on a Festival, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may raise the first in order to slaughter it, and then slaughter it; and with regard to the second one, one may provide it sustenance in its place in the pit so that it will not die. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may raise the first in order to slaughter it, and then reconsider and not slaughter it, and then employ artifice and say that he reconsidered and wants to slaughter the other, and raise the second. If he so desires, he slaughters this one; if he so desires, he slaughters that one. Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua permits certain actions on a Festival due to financial considerations, and does not issue decrees in those cases.

ממאי דילמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אליעזר התם אלא דאפשר לפרנסה אבל היכא דלא אפשר לפרנסה לא

The Gemara rejects this: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer only stated that he may not raise the second animal there, in a case where it is possible to save the animal by feeding it in the pit; however, in a case where it is impossible to save it by feeding it in the pit, no, he would permit raising the animal.

אי נמי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהושע התם דאפשר בהערמה אבל היכא דלא אפשר בהערמה לא

Alternatively, Rabbi Yehoshua only said that he may raise the second animal in a case where it is possible to employ artifice; however, in a case where it is not possible to employ artifice, no, he would not permit doing so.

אלא אמר רב פפא לא קשיא הא בית שמאי הא בית הלל דתנן בית שמאי אומרים

Rather Rav Pappa said: This is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, and that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. As we learned in a mishna that Beit Shammai say:

אין מוציאין את הקטן ואת הלולב ואת ספר תורה לרשות הרבים ובית הלל מתירין

One may neither carry a child nor a lulav nor a Torah scroll out to the public domain on a Festival, and Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Hillel permit carrying objects from one domain to another on a Festival for purposes other than preparing food.

אימר דשמעת להו לבית שמאי הוצאה טלטול מי שמעת להו וטלטול גופיה לאו משום הוצאה היא

The Gemara rejects this: Say that you heard Beit Shammai prohibit carrying out an object from one domain to another; did you hear that they prohibited moving an object? The Gemara rejects that distinction: And isn’t the prohibition of moving itself a decree issued due to the prohibition of carrying out? One who prohibits carrying out certainly prohibits moving an object as well.

ואף רב סבר לה להא דרבא דאמר רב מר שלא יגנב זהו טלטול שלא לצורך ואסור טעמא שלא יגנב אבל לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו מותר

The Gemara adds: And even Rav holds in accordance with this halakha of Rava, as Rav said: Moving a hoe so that it will not be stolen; that is an example of moving an object not for a specific purpose, and it is prohibited. The Gemara infers: The reason that it is prohibited is that it is moved so it will not be stolen; however, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, it is permitted.

איני והא רב כהנא איקלע לבי רב ואמר אייתו ליה שותא לכהנא ליתיב עליה לאו למימרא דדבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו אין לצורך מקומו לא

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Kahana happen to come to the house of Rav, and he said: Bring a net for Kahana so that he may sit on it? Is that not to say that with regard to an object whose primary function is prohibited, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, yes, it is permitted to move it; and for the purpose of utilizing its place, no, it is prohibited?

הכי אמר להו שקולו שותא מקמי כהנא ואי בעית אימא התם מחמה לצל הוה

The Gemara answers that this is what he said to them: Remove the net from before Kahana. That is a case of moving for the purpose of utilizing its place. And if you wish, say instead: There, it was a case of moving the object from the sun to the shade, as it was in a place where it could have been damaged. One might have mistakenly concluded that this was the reason that they were moving the net. Rav specified that the net was being moved for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, not to indicate that moving it for the purpose of utilizing its place is prohibited, but to indicate that moving from the sun to the shade is prohibited.

רב מרי בר רחל הוה ליה ההיא בי סדיותא בשמשא אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה מהו לטלטולינהו אמר ליה שרי אית לי אחרינא חזו לאורחין אית לי נמי לאורחים אמר ליה גלית אדעתיך דכרבה סבירא לך לכולי עלמא שרי לדידך אסיר

The Gemara relates that Rav Mari bar Raḥel, had felt cushions in the sun on Shabbat. Rav Mari came before Rava and said to him: What is the ruling with regard to carrying them? Rava said to him: It is permitted. Rav Mari said to Rava: I have others, and I do not need these cushions specifically. Rava said to him: Even so, these cushions are suitable for guests. Rav Mari said to him: I also have others for guests and therefore would be moving the cushions so that they would not be ruined in the sun. Rava said to him: You have revealed your opinion that you hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabba. For everyone else, it is permitted to move the cushions in this situation; however, for you, it is prohibited, as it is inappropriate to permit one to perform an action that he considers prohibited.

אמר רבי אבא אמר רבי חייא בר אשי אמר רב מכבדות של מילתא מותר לטלטלן בשבת אבל של תמרה לא

Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: With regard to brooms made of fine wool garments, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat because it is permitted to use them. However, brooms made of date-palm fronds, no, they may not be moved. It is prohibited to fill holes in the ground.

רבי אלעזר אומר אף של תמרה במאי עסקינן אילימא לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו בהא לימא רב של תמרה לא והא רב כרבא סבירא ליה אלא מחמה לצל בהא לימא רבי אלעזר אף של תמרה לעולם מחמה לצל אימא וכן אמר רבי אלעזר:

Rabbi Elazar says: It is permitted to move even those made of date-palm fronds. The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If you say that this is referring to moving it for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, would Rav say a broom made of date-palm fronds, no, it may not be moved? Doesn’t Rav hold in accordance with the opinion of Rava? Rather, this is referring to moving the broom from the sun to the shade, and that these brooms are in a place where they can be damaged. However, it is still puzzling: In this case, would Rabbi Elazar say that even brooms made from date-palm fronds may be moved? The Gemara answers: Actually, this is referring to moving them from the sun, where they will be damaged, to the shade. Emend this and say: And so too, Rabbi Elazar said, like Rav, that it is prohibited.

מתני׳ כל הכלים הניטלין בשבת שבריהן ניטלין עמהן ובלבד שיהו עושין מעין מלאכה

MISHNA: All vessels that may be moved on Shabbat, their shards may be moved along with them, as long as they are suited for some purpose.

שברי עריבה לכסות בהן את פי החבית שברי זכוכית לכסות בהן את פי הפך

Shards of a large bowl may be used to cover the mouth of a barrel. Shards of a glass vessel may be used to cover the mouth of a cruse.

רבי יהודה אומר בלבד שיהו עושין מעין מלאכתן שברי עריבה לצוק לתוכן מקפה ושל זכוכית לצוק לתוכן שמן:

Rabbi Yehuda says: As long as they are suited for a purpose similar to their original use. Shards of a large bowl must be suited to pour soup into them, and shards of a glass vessel must be suited to pour oil into them.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחלוקת שנשברו מערב שבת דמר סבר מעין מלאכתן אין מעין מלאכה אחרת לא ומר סבר אפילו מעין מלאכה אחרת

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This dispute in the mishna is only with regard to a case where the vessels broke on Shabbat eve, as this Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that if they are suited for a purpose similar to their original use, yes, it is permitted, and for some other use, no, it is prohibited. And this Sage, the Rabbis, hold: Even if they are suited for some other use, it is also permitted.

אבל נשברו בשבת דברי הכל מותרין הואיל ומוכנין על גבי אביהן מותר

But if the vessels broke on Shabbat, everyone agrees they are permitted. The reason for this is since they were designated for Shabbat use and consequently considered prepared at the onset of Shabbat due to their original vessels, it is permitted to move the shards as well.

מותיב רב זוטראי מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים

Rav Zutrai raised an objection from a baraita: One may kindle a fire on a Festival with whole vessels, but one may not kindle a fire with shards of vessels.

דנשברו אימת אילימא דנשברו מערב יום טוב עצים בעלמא נינהו אלא לאו ביום טוב וקתני מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקים בשברי כלים

The Gemara seeks to clarify: Vessels that were broken when? If you say that they were broken before the Festival, why is it prohibited to light a fire with them? They are pieces of ordinary wood. Isn’t this referring to a case where they broke on the Festival, and it is taught: One may kindle a fire on a Festival with whole vessels, but one may not kindle a fire with shards of vessels. The legal status of a vessel broken on a Festival, and all the more so one broken on Shabbat, is more stringent, not less.

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחלוקת שנשברו בשבת דמר סבר מוכן הוא ומר סבר נולד הוא אבל מערב שבת דברי הכל מותרין הואיל והוכנו למלאכה מבעוד יום

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This dispute in the mishna is only with regard to a case where the vessels broke on Shabbat, as this Sage, the Rabbis, holds it was prepared before Shabbat as part of the original vessel, and this Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that it is an item that came into being on Shabbat. Since they were not shards before Shabbat, they are a new entity and are set-aside. However, if they were broken from before the onset of Shabbat everyone agrees that it is permitted to move them, since they were prepared to serve some function while it was still day, before the onset of Shabbat.

תני חדא מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים ותניא אידך כשם שמסיקין בכלים כך מסיקין בשברי כלים ותניא אידך אין מסיקין לא בכלים ולא בשברי כלים

With regard to the halakhot of Festivals, it was taught in one baraita: One may kindle a fire with whole vessels, but one may not kindle a fire with shards of vessels. And it was taught in the other baraita: Just as one may kindle a fire with vessels, so too, one may kindle a fire with shards of vessels. And it was taught in yet another baraita: One may neither kindle a fire with vessels nor with shards of vessels.

הא רבי יהודה הא רבי שמעון הא רבי נחמיה

The Gemara resolves the apparent contradiction between the baraitot: This baraita, which distinguishes between vessels and broken vessels, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside on a Festival. That baraita, which permits kindling with both vessels and shards, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside on a Festival. This third baraita, which prohibits kindling with both vessels and shards, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who prohibits moving a vessel for any purpose other than its designated function.

אמר רב נחמן הני ליבני דאישתיור מבניינא שרי לטלטולינהו דחזו למיזגא עלייהו שרגינהו ודאי אקצינהו

Rav Naḥman said: With regard to these bricks that remained from the building after construction was completed, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat, because they are suited for one to sit on them. And if one arranged them in a pile, he certainly thereby set them aside from his consciousness, and it is prohibited to move them.

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל חרס קטנה מותר לטלטל בחצר אבל בכרמלית לא ורב נחמן דידיה אמר אפילו בכרמלית אבל ברשות הרבים לא ורבא אמר אפילו ברשות הרבים

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: With regard to a small earthenware shard, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat in the courtyard, because there are vessels there that need to be covered; but in a karmelit, no, one may not move it, because typically there are no vessels there and there would be no use for the shard. And Rav Naḥman himself said: Even in a karmelit it is permitted, but in the public domain, no, it is prohibited. And Rava said: Even in the public domain, it is permitted.

ואזדא רבא לטעמיה דרבא הוה קאזיל בריתקא דמחוזא אתווסאי מסאניה טינא אתא שמעיה שקל חספא וקא מכפר ליה רמו ביה רבנן קלא אמר לא מיסתייא דלא גמירי מיגמר נמי מגמרי אילו בחצר הואי מי לא הוה חזיא לכסויי ביה מנא הכא נמי חזיא לדידי

And Rava follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rava was walking in the street of Meḥoza and his shoes became dirty with clay. His servant came, took a shard of earthenware from the street, and wiped the clay off. The Sages raised their voice at him to reprimand him. Rava said: Is it not enough for them that they did not learn, but they are also teaching others? If the shard was in a courtyard, wouldn’t it be suited to cover a vessel with it? Here too, the shard is also suited to me, and moving it should not be prohibited.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מגופת חבית שנכתתה מותר לטלטל בשבת תניא נמי הכי מגופה שנכתתה היא ושבריה מותר לטלטלה בשבת ולא יספות ממנה שבר לכסות בה את הכלי ולסמוך בה כרעי המטה ואם זרקה באשפה אסור

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to the clay seal of a jug that was broken, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat. That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to the clay seal that was broken, it is permitted to move it, and its shards are permitted to be carried on Shabbat. And one may not break a shard from it to cover a vessel with it or to support the legs of a bed with it. And if one threw it into the garbage dump, it is prohibited to move it because he set it aside from his consciousness.

מתקיף לה רב פפא אלא מעתה זריק ליה לגלימיה הכי נמי דאסור אלא אמר רב פפא

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: If that is so, if one throws his cloak into the garbage dump, would you also say that it is prohibited to move it because it is set-aside? Isn’t the cloak still fit for use, and its status is not dependent on his intention? Rather, Rav Pappa said:

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

one week at a time with tamara spitz

Shabbat 124-130 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will review concepts in Daf 124-130 including moving utensils, moving boxes of food to make room for...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 124: Turning Broken Vessels into Vessels

The term "muktzah." Shabbat vs. yom tov - when it comes to items with a permissible purpose on yom tov...

Shabbat 124

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 124

ידו על כתף חבירו ויד חבירו על כתיפו ותולה ומפשיט

his hand on the shoulder of another, and the other’s hand on his shoulder, and suspends the lamb and flays its hide.

גלוסטרא דתנן נגר שיש בראשו גלוסטרא רבי יהושע אומר שומטה מן פתח זה ותולה בחבירו בשבת רבי טרפון אומר הרי הוא ככל הכלים ומיטלטל בחצר

The source for the thick end of a bolt is as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a bolt used in a door lock which has a thick end at the head of the bolt, Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may drag it from this doorway and hang it in another doorway on Shabbat, but he may not move it with his hands, because it was considered to be set-aside. Rabbi Tarfon says: It is like all the other utensils and may be moved in a courtyard.

מדוכה הא דאמרן אמר רבה ממאי דילמא לעולם אימא לך לאחר התרת כלים נשנו קנים טעמא מאי משום איעפושי בהאי פורתא לא מיעפש מקלות אפשר כרבי אלעזר

The case of a mortar is that which we said above. Rabba said: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps, actually I could say to you that these mishnayot were taught after permission to move utensils on Shabbat was adopted, and nevertheless, the prohibitions can be understood. With regard to the rods for the showbread, what is the reason that they are used? They are used due to concern that the bread will decay. In that brief period until the conclusion of Shabbat it will not decay. With regard to poles, why may they not be used on Passover eve? It is prohibited because it is possible to flay the lamb in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Use of the pole is superfluous, and therefore it is set-aside.

גלוסטרא כדרבי ינאי דאמר רבי ינאי בחצר שאינה מעורבת עסקינן רבי יהושע סבר תוך הפתח כלפנים דמי וקמטלטל מנא דבתים בחצר ורבי טרפון סבר תוך הפתח כלחוץ דמי ומנא דחצר בחצר קא מטלטל

In the case of the thick end of the bolt in the door, why was it prohibited to move it by hand? It was prohibited in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yanai, as Rabbi Yanai says: We are dealing with a courtyard for which a joining of courtyards [eiruv] was not established. Rabbi Yehoshua holds that inside the doorway is considered to be like inside the house, and therefore, he is moving utensils of the houses in the courtyard. Since there is no joining of the courtyards, one may not move a vessel from the house to the courtyard. And Rabbi Tarfon holds that inside the doorway is considered to be like outside the house, and therefore, he is moving utensils of the courtyard in the courtyard, which is permitted.

מדוכה רבי נחמיה היא:

With regard to a mortar, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who holds that a vessel may only be moved on Shabbat for the purpose of its designated use.

מתני׳ כל הכלים ניטלין לצורך ושלא לצורך רבי נחמיה אומר אין ניטלין אלא לצורך:

MISHNA: All vessels may be moved for a specific purpose and not for a specific purpose. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Vessels may only be moved for a specific purpose.

גמ׳ מאי לצורך ומאי שלא לצורך

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: For a specific purpose, and what is the meaning of: Not for a specific purpose?

אמר רבה לצורך דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך גופו שלא לצורך דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך מקומו ודבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו אין לצורך מקומו לא ואתא רבי נחמיה למימר ואפילו דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך גופו אין לצורך מקומו לא אמר ליה רבא לצורך מקומו שלא לצורך קרית ליה

Rabba said: For a specific purpose means: Moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use for the purpose of utilizing the object itself. Not for a specific purpose means: Moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use for the purpose of utilizing its place. And an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, yes, it is permitted; for the purpose of utilizing its place, no, it is prohibited. And Rabbi Neḥemya came to say: And even an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, moving it for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, yes; for the purpose of utilizing its place, no. Rava said to him: Do you call for the purpose of utilizing its place, not for a specific purpose? It is for a purpose.

אלא אמר רבא לצורך דבר שמלאכתו להיתר בין לצורך גופו בין לצורך מקומו שלא לצורך ואפילו מחמה לצל ודבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו אין מחמה לצל לא ואתא רבי נחמיה למימר ואפילו דבר שמלאכתו להיתר לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו אין מחמה לצל לא

Rather, Rava said: For a specific purpose means: Moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place. Not for a specific purpose means: Moving it even from the sun to the shade. And an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, yes, it is permitted; moving it from the sun to the shade, no, it is prohibited. And Rabbi Neḥemya came to say: Even an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, moving it for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, yes, it is permitted; moving it from the sun to the shade, no, it is prohibited.

יתיב רב ספרא ורב אחא בר הונא ורב הונא בר חנינא ויתבי וקאמרי לרבה אליבא דרבי נחמיה הני קערות היכי מטלטלינן אמר להו רב ספרא מידי דהוה אגרף של רעי

It is told that Rav Safra and Rav Aḥa bar Huna and Rav Huna bar Ḥanina sat together and they sat and they said: According to Rabba’s explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya that it is prohibited to move an object whose primary function is for a permitted use for the purpose of utilizing its place, these empty bowls, how do we carry them? Rav Safra said to them: You may move them, just as is the case of a chamber pot containing waste that may be moved because it is disgusting.

אמר ליה אביי לרבה למר אליבא דרבי נחמיה הני קערות היכי מטלטלינן להו אמר ליה רב ספרא חברין תרגמה מידי דהוה אגרף של רעי

Abaye said this same matter to Rabba: According to the Master’s explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, these empty bowls, how do we carry them? He said to him: Our colleague Rav Safra interpreted it: Just as is the case of a chamber pot.

איתיביה אביי מדוכה אם יש בה שום מטלטלין אותה ואם לאו אין מטלטלין אותה הכא במאי עסקינן מחמה לצל איתיביה ושוין שאם קצב עליו בשר שאסור לטלטלו הכא נמי מחמה לצל

Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: With regard to a mortar, if it has garlic in it, one may move it on Shabbat, and if not, one may not move it on Shabbat. According to Rava’s opinion that all utensils may be moved, why is it prohibited to move the mortar? Rava responded: With what we are dealing here? We are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade, which Rava prohibited. Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from that which was taught: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree that if one cut meat on it for the purpose of the Festival that it is then prohibited to move it because there is no further need for it on the Festival. According to Rava’s opinion, all utensils may be moved. He answered him: Here, too, we are dealing with a case of moving the mortar from the sun to the shade.

והא דתנן אין סומכין את הקדירה בבקעת וכן בדלת והא בקעת דביום טוב דבר שמלאכתו להיתר הוא אלמא דבר שמלאכתו להיתר בין לצורך גופו בין לצורך מקומו אסור התם מאי טעמא כיון דבשבת דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור הוא גזירה יום טוב אטו שבת

And Abaye raised another objection with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: One may not prop a pot with a piece of wood, and so too, one may not prop a door on a piece of wood. Isn’t a piece of wood on a Festival an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, since it is permitted to move it to light an oven? Apparently, there is an opinion that moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place is prohibited, and according to Rabba, even Rabbi Neḥemya does not hold that this is so. Rava answers: There, what is the reason for the prohibition? It is because on Shabbat it is an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use. Since the wood is set aside from use on Shabbat, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting moving it on a Festival, due to Shabbat.

וכי תימא שבת גופיה תישתרי דהא דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו שרי הני מילי היכא דאיכא תורת כלי עליו היכא דליכא תורת כלי עליו לא

And if you say: Moving the wood should be permitted on Shabbat itself because an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use is permitted both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, that assertion is rejected. This ruling, which permits moving an object whose primary use is prohibited, applies only in a case where the status of a vessel applies to it; in a case where the status of a vessel does not apply to it, no, it is prohibited.

ומי גזרינן והתנן משילין פירות דרך ארובה ביום טוב אבל לא בשבת

The Gemara asks: And do we issue decrees prohibiting actions on Festivals due to the fact that they are prohibited on Shabbat? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: One may drop fruits from the roof through a skylight on a Festival, but not on Shabbat. Apparently, the Sages do not prohibit on a Festival all of the actions that are prohibited on Shabbat.

ומי לא גזרינן והתנן אין בין יום טוב לשבת אלא אוכל נפש בלבד

The Gemara asks on the contrary: And do we not issue decrees on a Festival due to Shabbat? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: The only difference between a Festival and Shabbat is with regard to the preparation of food alone. In all other matters the Sages established that the halakhot of Shabbat and Festivals are the same.

אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר הא רבי יהושע דתניא אותו ואת בנו שנפלו לבור רבי אליעזר אומר מעלה את הראשון על מנת לשוחטו ושוחטו והשני עושה לו פרנסה במקומו בשביל שלא ימות רבי יהושע אומר מעלה את הראשון על מנת לשוחטו ואינו שוחטו ומערים ומעלה את השני רצה זה שוחט רצה זה שוחט

Rav Yosef says: This is not difficult. This mishna, which rules that it is prohibited, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer; that mishna, which rules that it is permitted, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As it was taught in a baraita: It is prohibited to slaughter a mother animal and its offspring on the same day, as it is stated: “You shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day” (Leviticus 22:28). With regard to it and its offspring that fell into a pit on a Festival, Rabbi Eliezer says: One may raise the first in order to slaughter it, and then slaughter it; and with regard to the second one, one may provide it sustenance in its place in the pit so that it will not die. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may raise the first in order to slaughter it, and then reconsider and not slaughter it, and then employ artifice and say that he reconsidered and wants to slaughter the other, and raise the second. If he so desires, he slaughters this one; if he so desires, he slaughters that one. Apparently, Rabbi Yehoshua permits certain actions on a Festival due to financial considerations, and does not issue decrees in those cases.

ממאי דילמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אליעזר התם אלא דאפשר לפרנסה אבל היכא דלא אפשר לפרנסה לא

The Gemara rejects this: From what does that conclusion ensue? Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer only stated that he may not raise the second animal there, in a case where it is possible to save the animal by feeding it in the pit; however, in a case where it is impossible to save it by feeding it in the pit, no, he would permit raising the animal.

אי נמי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהושע התם דאפשר בהערמה אבל היכא דלא אפשר בהערמה לא

Alternatively, Rabbi Yehoshua only said that he may raise the second animal in a case where it is possible to employ artifice; however, in a case where it is not possible to employ artifice, no, he would not permit doing so.

אלא אמר רב פפא לא קשיא הא בית שמאי הא בית הלל דתנן בית שמאי אומרים

Rather Rav Pappa said: This is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, and that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. As we learned in a mishna that Beit Shammai say:

אין מוציאין את הקטן ואת הלולב ואת ספר תורה לרשות הרבים ובית הלל מתירין

One may neither carry a child nor a lulav nor a Torah scroll out to the public domain on a Festival, and Beit Hillel permit doing so. Beit Hillel permit carrying objects from one domain to another on a Festival for purposes other than preparing food.

אימר דשמעת להו לבית שמאי הוצאה טלטול מי שמעת להו וטלטול גופיה לאו משום הוצאה היא

The Gemara rejects this: Say that you heard Beit Shammai prohibit carrying out an object from one domain to another; did you hear that they prohibited moving an object? The Gemara rejects that distinction: And isn’t the prohibition of moving itself a decree issued due to the prohibition of carrying out? One who prohibits carrying out certainly prohibits moving an object as well.

ואף רב סבר לה להא דרבא דאמר רב מר שלא יגנב זהו טלטול שלא לצורך ואסור טעמא שלא יגנב אבל לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו מותר

The Gemara adds: And even Rav holds in accordance with this halakha of Rava, as Rav said: Moving a hoe so that it will not be stolen; that is an example of moving an object not for a specific purpose, and it is prohibited. The Gemara infers: The reason that it is prohibited is that it is moved so it will not be stolen; however, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, it is permitted.

איני והא רב כהנא איקלע לבי רב ואמר אייתו ליה שותא לכהנא ליתיב עליה לאו למימרא דדבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו אין לצורך מקומו לא

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn’t Rav Kahana happen to come to the house of Rav, and he said: Bring a net for Kahana so that he may sit on it? Is that not to say that with regard to an object whose primary function is prohibited, for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, yes, it is permitted to move it; and for the purpose of utilizing its place, no, it is prohibited?

הכי אמר להו שקולו שותא מקמי כהנא ואי בעית אימא התם מחמה לצל הוה

The Gemara answers that this is what he said to them: Remove the net from before Kahana. That is a case of moving for the purpose of utilizing its place. And if you wish, say instead: There, it was a case of moving the object from the sun to the shade, as it was in a place where it could have been damaged. One might have mistakenly concluded that this was the reason that they were moving the net. Rav specified that the net was being moved for the purpose of utilizing the object itself, not to indicate that moving it for the purpose of utilizing its place is prohibited, but to indicate that moving from the sun to the shade is prohibited.

רב מרי בר רחל הוה ליה ההיא בי סדיותא בשמשא אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה מהו לטלטולינהו אמר ליה שרי אית לי אחרינא חזו לאורחין אית לי נמי לאורחים אמר ליה גלית אדעתיך דכרבה סבירא לך לכולי עלמא שרי לדידך אסיר

The Gemara relates that Rav Mari bar Raḥel, had felt cushions in the sun on Shabbat. Rav Mari came before Rava and said to him: What is the ruling with regard to carrying them? Rava said to him: It is permitted. Rav Mari said to Rava: I have others, and I do not need these cushions specifically. Rava said to him: Even so, these cushions are suitable for guests. Rav Mari said to him: I also have others for guests and therefore would be moving the cushions so that they would not be ruined in the sun. Rava said to him: You have revealed your opinion that you hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabba. For everyone else, it is permitted to move the cushions in this situation; however, for you, it is prohibited, as it is inappropriate to permit one to perform an action that he considers prohibited.

אמר רבי אבא אמר רבי חייא בר אשי אמר רב מכבדות של מילתא מותר לטלטלן בשבת אבל של תמרה לא

Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: With regard to brooms made of fine wool garments, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat because it is permitted to use them. However, brooms made of date-palm fronds, no, they may not be moved. It is prohibited to fill holes in the ground.

רבי אלעזר אומר אף של תמרה במאי עסקינן אילימא לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו בהא לימא רב של תמרה לא והא רב כרבא סבירא ליה אלא מחמה לצל בהא לימא רבי אלעזר אף של תמרה לעולם מחמה לצל אימא וכן אמר רבי אלעזר:

Rabbi Elazar says: It is permitted to move even those made of date-palm fronds. The Gemara asks: With what are we dealing? If you say that this is referring to moving it for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place, would Rav say a broom made of date-palm fronds, no, it may not be moved? Doesn’t Rav hold in accordance with the opinion of Rava? Rather, this is referring to moving the broom from the sun to the shade, and that these brooms are in a place where they can be damaged. However, it is still puzzling: In this case, would Rabbi Elazar say that even brooms made from date-palm fronds may be moved? The Gemara answers: Actually, this is referring to moving them from the sun, where they will be damaged, to the shade. Emend this and say: And so too, Rabbi Elazar said, like Rav, that it is prohibited.

מתני׳ כל הכלים הניטלין בשבת שבריהן ניטלין עמהן ובלבד שיהו עושין מעין מלאכה

MISHNA: All vessels that may be moved on Shabbat, their shards may be moved along with them, as long as they are suited for some purpose.

שברי עריבה לכסות בהן את פי החבית שברי זכוכית לכסות בהן את פי הפך

Shards of a large bowl may be used to cover the mouth of a barrel. Shards of a glass vessel may be used to cover the mouth of a cruse.

רבי יהודה אומר בלבד שיהו עושין מעין מלאכתן שברי עריבה לצוק לתוכן מקפה ושל זכוכית לצוק לתוכן שמן:

Rabbi Yehuda says: As long as they are suited for a purpose similar to their original use. Shards of a large bowl must be suited to pour soup into them, and shards of a glass vessel must be suited to pour oil into them.

גמ׳ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחלוקת שנשברו מערב שבת דמר סבר מעין מלאכתן אין מעין מלאכה אחרת לא ומר סבר אפילו מעין מלאכה אחרת

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This dispute in the mishna is only with regard to a case where the vessels broke on Shabbat eve, as this Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that if they are suited for a purpose similar to their original use, yes, it is permitted, and for some other use, no, it is prohibited. And this Sage, the Rabbis, hold: Even if they are suited for some other use, it is also permitted.

אבל נשברו בשבת דברי הכל מותרין הואיל ומוכנין על גבי אביהן מותר

But if the vessels broke on Shabbat, everyone agrees they are permitted. The reason for this is since they were designated for Shabbat use and consequently considered prepared at the onset of Shabbat due to their original vessels, it is permitted to move the shards as well.

מותיב רב זוטראי מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים

Rav Zutrai raised an objection from a baraita: One may kindle a fire on a Festival with whole vessels, but one may not kindle a fire with shards of vessels.

דנשברו אימת אילימא דנשברו מערב יום טוב עצים בעלמא נינהו אלא לאו ביום טוב וקתני מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקים בשברי כלים

The Gemara seeks to clarify: Vessels that were broken when? If you say that they were broken before the Festival, why is it prohibited to light a fire with them? They are pieces of ordinary wood. Isn’t this referring to a case where they broke on the Festival, and it is taught: One may kindle a fire on a Festival with whole vessels, but one may not kindle a fire with shards of vessels. The legal status of a vessel broken on a Festival, and all the more so one broken on Shabbat, is more stringent, not less.

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחלוקת שנשברו בשבת דמר סבר מוכן הוא ומר סבר נולד הוא אבל מערב שבת דברי הכל מותרין הואיל והוכנו למלאכה מבעוד יום

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This dispute in the mishna is only with regard to a case where the vessels broke on Shabbat, as this Sage, the Rabbis, holds it was prepared before Shabbat as part of the original vessel, and this Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that it is an item that came into being on Shabbat. Since they were not shards before Shabbat, they are a new entity and are set-aside. However, if they were broken from before the onset of Shabbat everyone agrees that it is permitted to move them, since they were prepared to serve some function while it was still day, before the onset of Shabbat.

תני חדא מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים ותניא אידך כשם שמסיקין בכלים כך מסיקין בשברי כלים ותניא אידך אין מסיקין לא בכלים ולא בשברי כלים

With regard to the halakhot of Festivals, it was taught in one baraita: One may kindle a fire with whole vessels, but one may not kindle a fire with shards of vessels. And it was taught in the other baraita: Just as one may kindle a fire with vessels, so too, one may kindle a fire with shards of vessels. And it was taught in yet another baraita: One may neither kindle a fire with vessels nor with shards of vessels.

הא רבי יהודה הא רבי שמעון הא רבי נחמיה

The Gemara resolves the apparent contradiction between the baraitot: This baraita, which distinguishes between vessels and broken vessels, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside on a Festival. That baraita, which permits kindling with both vessels and shards, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside on a Festival. This third baraita, which prohibits kindling with both vessels and shards, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who prohibits moving a vessel for any purpose other than its designated function.

אמר רב נחמן הני ליבני דאישתיור מבניינא שרי לטלטולינהו דחזו למיזגא עלייהו שרגינהו ודאי אקצינהו

Rav Naḥman said: With regard to these bricks that remained from the building after construction was completed, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat, because they are suited for one to sit on them. And if one arranged them in a pile, he certainly thereby set them aside from his consciousness, and it is prohibited to move them.

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל חרס קטנה מותר לטלטל בחצר אבל בכרמלית לא ורב נחמן דידיה אמר אפילו בכרמלית אבל ברשות הרבים לא ורבא אמר אפילו ברשות הרבים

Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: With regard to a small earthenware shard, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat in the courtyard, because there are vessels there that need to be covered; but in a karmelit, no, one may not move it, because typically there are no vessels there and there would be no use for the shard. And Rav Naḥman himself said: Even in a karmelit it is permitted, but in the public domain, no, it is prohibited. And Rava said: Even in the public domain, it is permitted.

ואזדא רבא לטעמיה דרבא הוה קאזיל בריתקא דמחוזא אתווסאי מסאניה טינא אתא שמעיה שקל חספא וקא מכפר ליה רמו ביה רבנן קלא אמר לא מיסתייא דלא גמירי מיגמר נמי מגמרי אילו בחצר הואי מי לא הוה חזיא לכסויי ביה מנא הכא נמי חזיא לדידי

And Rava follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rava was walking in the street of Meḥoza and his shoes became dirty with clay. His servant came, took a shard of earthenware from the street, and wiped the clay off. The Sages raised their voice at him to reprimand him. Rava said: Is it not enough for them that they did not learn, but they are also teaching others? If the shard was in a courtyard, wouldn’t it be suited to cover a vessel with it? Here too, the shard is also suited to me, and moving it should not be prohibited.

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מגופת חבית שנכתתה מותר לטלטל בשבת תניא נמי הכי מגופה שנכתתה היא ושבריה מותר לטלטלה בשבת ולא יספות ממנה שבר לכסות בה את הכלי ולסמוך בה כרעי המטה ואם זרקה באשפה אסור

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to the clay seal of a jug that was broken, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat. That was also taught in a baraita: With regard to the clay seal that was broken, it is permitted to move it, and its shards are permitted to be carried on Shabbat. And one may not break a shard from it to cover a vessel with it or to support the legs of a bed with it. And if one threw it into the garbage dump, it is prohibited to move it because he set it aside from his consciousness.

מתקיף לה רב פפא אלא מעתה זריק ליה לגלימיה הכי נמי דאסור אלא אמר רב פפא

Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: If that is so, if one throws his cloak into the garbage dump, would you also say that it is prohibited to move it because it is set-aside? Isn’t the cloak still fit for use, and its status is not dependent on his intention? Rather, Rav Pappa said:

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

Join Hadran Communities! Connect with women learning in your area.

Scroll To Top