Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 8, 2020 | 讟状讝 讘转诪讜讝 转砖状驻

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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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?

讬讚讜 注诇 讻转祝 讞讘讬专讜 讜讬讚 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 讜转讜诇讛 讜诪驻砖讬讟

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

讙诇讜住讟专讗 讚转谞谉 谞讙专 砖讬砖 讘专讗砖讜 讙诇讜住讟专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪讟讛 诪谉 驻转讞 讝讛 讜转讜诇讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讜诪讬讟诇讟诇 讘讞爪专

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.

诪讚讜讻讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讗讞专 讛转专转 讻诇讬诐 谞砖谞讜 拽谞讬诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬注驻讜砖讬 讘讛讗讬 驻讜专转讗 诇讗 诪讬注驻砖 诪拽诇讜转 讗驻砖专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

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.

讙诇讜住讟专讗 讻讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘讞爪专 砖讗讬谞讛 诪注讜专讘转 注住拽讬谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讚诪讬 讜拽诪讟诇讟诇 诪谞讗 讚讘转讬诐 讘讞爪专 讜专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 住讘专 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 讻诇讞讜抓 讚诪讬 讜诪谞讗 讚讞爪专 讘讞爪专 拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇

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.

诪讚讜讻讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗:

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

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 谞讬讟诇讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讜砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱:

MISHNA: All vessels may be moved for a specific purpose and not for a specific purpose. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: Vessels may only be moved for a specific purpose.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诇爪讜专讱 讜诪讗讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱

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

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇爪讜专讱 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讜讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 拽专讬转 诇讬讛

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 Ne岣mya 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇爪讜专讱 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 讜讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讜诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讗讬谉 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 诇讗 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讜诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讗讬谉 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 诇讗

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 Ne岣mya 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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 住驻专讗 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 诇专讘讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛谞讬 拽注专讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 住驻专讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬

It is told that Rav Safra and Rav A岣 bar Huna and Rav Huna bar 岣nina sat together and they sat and they said: According to Rabba鈥檚 explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 诇诪专 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛谞讬 拽注专讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 讞讘专讬谉 转专讙诪讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬

Abaye said this same matter to Rabba: According to the Master鈥檚 explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讚讜讻讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 砖讜诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 拽爪讘 注诇讬讜 讘砖专 砖讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇

Abaye raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 住讜诪讻讬谉 讗转 讛拽讚讬专讛 讘讘拽注转 讜讻谉 讘讚诇转 讜讛讗 讘拽注转 讚讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 讛讜讗 讗诇诪讗 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讗住讜专 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘砖讘转 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 讛讜讗 讙讝讬专讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讟讜 砖讘转

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鈥檛 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 Ne岣mya 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讘转 讙讜驻讬讛 转讬砖转专讬 讚讛讗 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讜诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 砖专讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 诇讗

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.

讜诪讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讚专讱 讗专讜讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转

The Gemara asks: And do we issue decrees prohibiting actions on Festivals due to the fact that they are prohibited on Shabbat? Didn鈥檛 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.

讜诪讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara asks on the contrary: And do we not issue decrees on a Festival due to Shabbat? Didn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讘讜专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪注诇讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讜讞讟讜 讜砖讜讞讟讜 讜讛砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 诇讜 驻专谞住讛 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬诪讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪注诇讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讜讞讟讜 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜讞讟讜 讜诪注专讬诐 讜诪注诇讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 专爪讛 讝讛 砖讜讞讟 专爪讛 讝讛 砖讜讞讟

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: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day鈥 (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.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗驻砖专 诇驻专谞住讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇驻专谞住讛 诇讗

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.

讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛转诐 讚讗驻砖专 讘讛注专诪讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讘讛注专诪讛 诇讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐

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:

讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讜讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 讜讗转 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

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.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讛讜 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜爪讗讛 讟诇讟讜诇 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讛讜 讜讟诇讟讜诇 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讜爪讗讛 讛讬讗

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鈥檛 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.

讜讗祝 专讘 住讘专 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪专 砖诇讗 讬讙谞讘 讝讛讜 讟诇讟讜诇 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讜讗住讜专 讟注诪讗 砖诇讗 讬讙谞讘 讗讘诇 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讜诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜转专

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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘 讜讗诪专 讗讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 砖讜转讗 诇讻讛谞讗 诇讬转讬讘 注诇讬讛 诇讗讜 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 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?

讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖拽讜诇讜 砖讜转讗 诪拽诪讬 讻讛谞讗 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛转诐 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 讛讜讛

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.

专讘 诪专讬 讘专 专讞诇 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讘讬 住讚讬讜转讗 讘砖诪砖讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖专讬 讗讬转 诇讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讞讝讜 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讗讬转 诇讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讜专讞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诇讬转 讗讚注转讬讱 讚讻专讘讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖专讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讗住讬专

The Gemara relates that Rav Mari bar Ra岣l, 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪讻讘讚讜转 砖诇 诪讬诇转讗 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 砖诇 转诪专讛 诇讗

Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi 岣yya 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.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 砖诇 转诪专讛 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讜诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘 砖诇 转诪专讛 诇讗 讜讛讗 专讘 讻专讘讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗祝 砖诇 转诪专讛 诇注讜诇诐 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专:

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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 砖讘专讬讛谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 注诪讛谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛

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.

砖讘专讬 注专讬讘讛 诇讻住讜转 讘讛谉 讗转 驻讬 讛讞讘讬转 砖讘专讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诇讻住讜转 讘讛谉 讗转 驻讬 讛驻讱

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻转谉 砖讘专讬 注专讬讘讛 诇爪讜拽 诇转讜讻谉 诪拽驻讛 讜砖诇 讝讻讜讻讬转 诇爪讜拽 诇转讜讻谉 砖诪谉:

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞砖讘专讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讚诪专 住讘专 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻转谉 讗讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞专转 诇讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞专转

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.

讗讘诇 谞砖讘专讜 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜讻谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讘讬讛谉 诪讜转专

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.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘 讝讜讟专讗讬 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐

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.

讚谞砖讘专讜 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚谞砖讘专讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注爪讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜拽转谞讬 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬诐 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞砖讘专讜 讘砖讘转 讚诪专 住讘专 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讻谞讜 诇诪诇讗讻讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

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.

转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讻砖诐 砖诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讻讱 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 诇讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐

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.

讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

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 Ne岣mya, who prohibits moving a vessel for any purpose other than its designated function.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛谞讬 诇讬讘谞讬 讚讗讬砖转讬讜专 诪讘谞讬讬谞讗 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬谞讛讜 讚讞讝讜 诇诪讬讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖专讙讬谞讛讜 讜讚讗讬 讗拽爪讬谞讛讜

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞专住 拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讞爪专 讗讘诇 讘讻专诪诇讬转 诇讗 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an 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.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讘专讬转拽讗 讚诪讞讜讝讗 讗转讜讜住讗讬 诪住讗谞讬讛 讟讬谞讗 讗转讗 砖诪注讬讛 砖拽诇 讞住驻讗 讜拽讗 诪讻驻专 诇讬讛 专诪讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 拽诇讗 讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬住转讬讬讗 讚诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 诪讬讙诪专 谞诪讬 诪讙诪专讬 讗讬诇讜 讘讞爪专 讛讜讗讬 诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬讗 诇讻住讜讬讬 讘讬讛 诪谞讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬

And Rava follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rava was walking in the street of Me岣za 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讙讜驻转 讞讘讬转 砖谞讻转转讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘砖讘转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讙讜驻讛 砖谞讻转转讛 讛讬讗 讜砖讘专讬讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 讬住驻讜转 诪诪谞讛 砖讘专 诇讻住讜转 讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讜诇住诪讜讱 讘讛 讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛 讜讗诐 讝专拽讛 讘讗砖驻讛 讗住讜专

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讝专讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗

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鈥檛 the cloak still fit for use, and its status is not dependent on his intention? Rather, Rav Pappa said:Rav Mari bar Ra岣l, had felt

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.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi 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

讬讚讜 注诇 讻转祝 讞讘讬专讜 讜讬讚 讞讘讬专讜 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 讜转讜诇讛 讜诪驻砖讬讟

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

讙诇讜住讟专讗 讚转谞谉 谞讙专 砖讬砖 讘专讗砖讜 讙诇讜住讟专讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪讟讛 诪谉 驻转讞 讝讛 讜转讜诇讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讜诪讬讟诇讟诇 讘讞爪专

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.

诪讚讜讻讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讗讞专 讛转专转 讻诇讬诐 谞砖谞讜 拽谞讬诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讗讬注驻讜砖讬 讘讛讗讬 驻讜专转讗 诇讗 诪讬注驻砖 诪拽诇讜转 讗驻砖专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

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.

讙诇讜住讟专讗 讻讚专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘讞爪专 砖讗讬谞讛 诪注讜专讘转 注住拽讬谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 讻诇驻谞讬诐 讚诪讬 讜拽诪讟诇讟诇 诪谞讗 讚讘转讬诐 讘讞爪专 讜专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 住讘专 转讜讱 讛驻转讞 讻诇讞讜抓 讚诪讬 讜诪谞讗 讚讞爪专 讘讞爪专 拽讗 诪讟诇讟诇

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.

诪讚讜讻讛 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗:

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

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 谞讬讟诇讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讜砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇爪讜专讱:

MISHNA: All vessels may be moved for a specific purpose and not for a specific purpose. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: Vessels may only be moved for a specific purpose.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诇爪讜专讱 讜诪讗讬 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱

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

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇爪讜专讱 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讜讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 拽专讬转 诇讬讛

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 Ne岣mya 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇爪讜专讱 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 讜讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讜诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讗讬谉 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 诇讗 讜讗转讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讜诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讗讬谉 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 诇讗

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 Ne岣mya 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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 住驻专讗 讜专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讜讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 诇专讘讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛谞讬 拽注专讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 住驻专讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬

It is told that Rav Safra and Rav A岣 bar Huna and Rav Huna bar 岣nina sat together and they sat and they said: According to Rabba鈥檚 explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讛 诇诪专 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛谞讬 拽注专讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪讟诇讟诇讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住驻专讗 讞讘专讬谉 转专讙诪讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙专祝 砖诇 专注讬

Abaye said this same matter to Rabba: According to the Master鈥檚 explanation in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讚讜讻讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 砖讜诐 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗诐 拽爪讘 注诇讬讜 讘砖专 砖讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇

Abaye raised an objection to Rava鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讜讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗讬谉 住讜诪讻讬谉 讗转 讛拽讚讬专讛 讘讘拽注转 讜讻谉 讘讚诇转 讜讛讗 讘拽注转 讚讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 讛讜讗 讗诇诪讗 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讛讬转专 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讘讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讗住讜专 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘砖讘转 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 讛讜讗 讙讝讬专讛 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讟讜 砖讘转

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鈥檛 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 Ne岣mya 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.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讘转 讙讜驻讬讛 转讬砖转专讬 讚讛讗 讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讜诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 砖专讬 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 转讜专转 讻诇讬 注诇讬讜 诇讗

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.

讜诪讬 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 诪砖讬诇讬谉 驻讬专讜转 讚专讱 讗专讜讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘砖讘转

The Gemara asks: And do we issue decrees prohibiting actions on Festivals due to the fact that they are prohibited on Shabbat? Didn鈥檛 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.

讜诪讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讜讻诇 谞驻砖 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara asks on the contrary: And do we not issue decrees on a Festival due to Shabbat? Didn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讜讗转 讘谞讜 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讘讜专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪注诇讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讜讞讟讜 讜砖讜讞讟讜 讜讛砖谞讬 注讜砖讛 诇讜 驻专谞住讛 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬诪讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诪注诇讛 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讜讞讟讜 讜讗讬谞讜 砖讜讞讟讜 讜诪注专讬诐 讜诪注诇讛 讗转 讛砖谞讬 专爪讛 讝讛 砖讜讞讟 专爪讛 讝讛 砖讜讞讟

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: 鈥淵ou shall not slaughter it and its offspring both in one day鈥 (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.

诪诪讗讬 讚讬诇诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗驻砖专 诇驻专谞住讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇驻专谞住讛 诇讗

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.

讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛转诐 讚讗驻砖专 讘讛注专诪讛 讗讘诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讘讛注专诪讛 诇讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讗 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐

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:

讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 讗转 讛拽讟谉 讜讗转 讛诇讜诇讘 讜讗转 住驻专 转讜专讛 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪转讬专讬谉

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.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讛讜 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛讜爪讗讛 讟诇讟讜诇 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讛讜 讜讟诇讟讜诇 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讛讜爪讗讛 讛讬讗

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鈥檛 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.

讜讗祝 专讘 住讘专 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪专 砖诇讗 讬讙谞讘 讝讛讜 讟诇讟讜诇 砖诇讗 诇爪讜专讱 讜讗住讜专 讟注诪讗 砖诇讗 讬讙谞讘 讗讘诇 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讜诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜转专

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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗讬拽诇注 诇讘讬 专讘 讜讗诪专 讗讬讬转讜 诇讬讛 砖讜转讗 诇讻讛谞讗 诇讬转讬讘 注诇讬讛 诇讗讜 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讚讘专 砖诪诇讗讻转讜 诇讗讬住讜专 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讗讬谉 诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Didn鈥檛 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?

讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖拽讜诇讜 砖讜转讗 诪拽诪讬 讻讛谞讗 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛转诐 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 讛讜讛

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.

专讘 诪专讬 讘专 专讞诇 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讘讬 住讚讬讜转讗 讘砖诪砖讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讜 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖专讬 讗讬转 诇讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 讞讝讜 诇讗讜专讞讬谉 讗讬转 诇讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讜专讞讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诇讬转 讗讚注转讬讱 讚讻专讘讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖专讬 诇讚讬讚讱 讗住讬专

The Gemara relates that Rav Mari bar Ra岣l, 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪讻讘讚讜转 砖诇 诪讬诇转讗 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇谉 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 砖诇 转诪专讛 诇讗

Rabbi Abba said that Rabbi 岣yya 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.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 砖诇 转诪专讛 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇爪讜专讱 讙讜驻讜 讜诇爪讜专讱 诪拽讜诪讜 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘 砖诇 转诪专讛 诇讗 讜讛讗 专讘 讻专讘讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗祝 砖诇 转诪专讛 诇注讜诇诐 诪讞诪讛 诇爪诇 讗讬诪讗 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专:

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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛讻诇讬诐 讛谞讬讟诇讬谉 讘砖讘转 砖讘专讬讛谉 谞讬讟诇讬谉 注诪讛谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛

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.

砖讘专讬 注专讬讘讛 诇讻住讜转 讘讛谉 讗转 驻讬 讛讞讘讬转 砖讘专讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 诇讻住讜转 讘讛谉 讗转 驻讬 讛驻讱

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 注讜砖讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻转谉 砖讘专讬 注专讬讘讛 诇爪讜拽 诇转讜讻谉 诪拽驻讛 讜砖诇 讝讻讜讻讬转 诇爪讜拽 诇转讜讻谉 砖诪谉:

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞砖讘专讜 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讚诪专 住讘专 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻转谉 讗讬谉 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞专转 诇讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪注讬谉 诪诇讗讻讛 讗讞专转

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.

讗讘诇 谞砖讘专讜 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讜讻谞讬谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讘讬讛谉 诪讜转专

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.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘 讝讜讟专讗讬 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐

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.

讚谞砖讘专讜 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚谞砖讘专讜 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 注爪讬诐 讘注诇诪讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜拽转谞讬 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬诐 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐

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鈥檛 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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讞诇讜拽转 砖谞砖讘专讜 讘砖讘转 讚诪专 住讘专 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜讻谞讜 诇诪诇讗讻讛 诪讘注讜讚 讬讜诐

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.

转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讻砖诐 砖诪住讬拽讬谉 讘讻诇讬诐 讻讱 诪住讬拽讬谉 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诪住讬拽讬谉 诇讗 讘讻诇讬诐 讜诇讗 讘砖讘专讬 讻诇讬诐

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.

讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛

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 Ne岣mya, who prohibits moving a vessel for any purpose other than its designated function.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛谞讬 诇讬讘谞讬 讚讗讬砖转讬讜专 诪讘谞讬讬谞讗 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬谞讛讜 讚讞讝讜 诇诪讬讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 砖专讙讬谞讛讜 讜讚讗讬 讗拽爪讬谞讛讜

Rav Na岣an 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讞专住 拽讟谞讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘讞爪专 讗讘诇 讘讻专诪诇讬转 诇讗 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讻专诪诇讬转 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an 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.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讘专讬转拽讗 讚诪讞讜讝讗 讗转讜讜住讗讬 诪住讗谞讬讛 讟讬谞讗 讗转讗 砖诪注讬讛 砖拽诇 讞住驻讗 讜拽讗 诪讻驻专 诇讬讛 专诪讜 讘讬讛 专讘谞谉 拽诇讗 讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬住转讬讬讗 讚诇讗 讙诪讬专讬 诪讬讙诪专 谞诪讬 诪讙诪专讬 讗讬诇讜 讘讞爪专 讛讜讗讬 诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬讗 诇讻住讜讬讬 讘讬讛 诪谞讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讞讝讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬

And Rava follows his regular line of reasoning, as Rava was walking in the street of Me岣za 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讙讜驻转 讞讘讬转 砖谞讻转转讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇 讘砖讘转 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讙讜驻讛 砖谞讻转转讛 讛讬讗 讜砖讘专讬讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讘砖讘转 讜诇讗 讬住驻讜转 诪诪谞讛 砖讘专 诇讻住讜转 讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讜诇住诪讜讱 讘讛 讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛 讜讗诐 讝专拽讛 讘讗砖驻讛 讗住讜专

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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讝专讬拽 诇讬讛 诇讙诇讬诪讬讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗

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鈥檛 the cloak still fit for use, and its status is not dependent on his intention? Rather, Rav Pappa said:Rav Mari bar Ra岣l, had felt

Scroll To Top