Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 9, 2020 | י״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 125

The gemara goes through a list of items, determining whether or not they are muktze – can they serve a function or not? There is a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda regarding a broken piece of an earthenware oven. The gemara discussed the case in which they argue and what the argument is about. Two different explanations are suggested. If one built a utensil out of a gourd and put a stone in to weigh it down so one could draw water from a well or stream, can one use it on Shabbat – does the gourd fall into the category of a base for a muktze item or is the stone considered secondary to the gourd? How is it similar to the case of a stone placed on top of a barrel that appears in a different mishna. If one wants to use an item that is muktze machamat gufo, muktze because it doesn’t serve any function, what is needed to be able to use it – is it enough to think before Shabbat that one plans to use it or is some action necessary and if so, how serious an action? Can one add an enclosure to a window? On what does it depend? Is it considered building a temporary wall?

אם זרקה מבעוד יום לאשפה אסורה

If one threw the clay seal of a jug into the garbage dump while it is still day, before Shabbat, it is prohibited to move it on Shabbat because he indicated that he set it aside from use.

אמר בר המדורי אמר שמואל קרומיות של מחצלת מותר לטלטלם בשבת מאי טעמא אמר רבא בר המדורי אסברא לי מחצלת גופא למאי חזיא לכסויי ביה עפרא הני נמי חזיין לכסויי בהו טינופת

Bar Hamduri said that Shmuel said: With regard to shreds of reeds that separated from a mat, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Bar Hamduri explained it to me: The mat itself, for what use is it suited? It is suited to cover dirt with it. These shreds, too, are suited to cover filth with them.

אמר רבי זירא אמר רב שירי פרוזמיות אסור לטלטלן בשבת אמר אביי במטלניות שאין בהן שלש על שלש דלא חזיין לא לעניים ולא לעשירים:

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: With regard to the remains of cloaks [perozemiyyot], it is prohibited to move them on Shabbat. Abaye said: This is referring to small rags that do not have an area of three by three fingerbreadths, that are neither suited for use by the poor nor by the wealthy.

תנו רבנן שברי תנור ישן הרי הן ככל הכלים הניטלין בחצר דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר אין ניטלין העיד רבי יוסי משום רבי אליעזר בן יעקב על שברי תנור ישן שניטלין בשבת ועל כיסויו שאינו צריך בית יד

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: The shards of an old oven may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat like all of the vessels that may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They may not be moved. Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle.

במאי קמיפלגי אמר אביי בעושין מעין מלאכה ואין עושין מעין מלאכתן קמיפלגי ואזדא רבי יהודה לטעמיה ורבי מאיר לטעמיה

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? Abaye said: It is with regard to shards when they serve some function but do not serve a function similar to their own original function that they disagree. And Rabbi Yehuda follows his own line of reasoning, and Rabbi Meir follows his own line of reasoning, as they differed in the mishna.

מתקיף לה רבא אי הכי אדמיפלגי בשברי תנור ליפלגו בשברי כלים בעלמא

Rava strongly objects to this: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to ordinary shards. Why is the dispute specifically with regard to an oven?

אלא אמר רבא בשברי דהאי תנור קמיפלגי דתנן נתנו על פי הבור או על פי הדות ונתן שם אבן רבי יהודה אומר אם מסיק מלמטה והוא נסוק מלמעלה טמא ואם לאו טהור וחכמים אומרים הואיל והוסק מכל מקום טמא

Rather, Rava said: It is with regard to shards of this particular oven that they disagree, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a clay oven that is not attached to the ground with mortar in the standard manner, but rather, one placed it over the mouth of a pit or over the mouth of a cistern, and he placed a stone there between the wall of the pit and the oven to secure the oven in place, Rabbi Yehuda says: If one heats the oven from beneath the oven, inside the pit, and the oven is thereby heated at the top, the oven serves its standard function; it is a full-fledged utensil and it can become ritually impure. And if it is not attached so tightly that it is heated at the top, it is ritually pure, because it is not a full-fledged vessel. And the Rabbis say: Since it can be heated in some manner, it can become ritually impure, because it serves its standard purpose.

ובמאי קמיפלגי בהאי קרא תנור וכירים יותץ טמאים הם וטמאים יהיו לכם רבי יהודה סבר מחוסר נתיצה טמא שאין מחוסר נתיצה טהור ורבנן סברי טמאים יהיו לכם מכל מקום

And with regard to what do they disagree? It is with regard to this verse: “And everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be impure; whether oven, or stove, it shall be broken in pieces; they are impure, and they shall be impure to you” (Leviticus 11:35). Rabbi Yehuda holds: An oven that lacks smashing, i.e., it is whole and can be broken, can become impure. One that does not lack smashing, but it is situated in a place where it is not completely effective, is considered broken and is pure, i.e., it cannot become ritually impure. And the Rabbis hold that the verse comes to add: “They shall be impure to you,” in any case, under any circumstances.

ורבנן נמי הכתיב יותץ ההוא לאידך גיסא דסלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דחבריה בארעא כגופא דארעא דמי קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, too, isn’t it written: “They shall be broken into pieces,” and why don’t they interpret the verse in the same way that Rabbi Yehuda does? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis understand this verse from another direction, as it could have entered your mind to say: Since he attached it to the ground, its legal status is like that of the ground itself, and anything attached to the ground cannot become impure. Therefore, it teaches us that since it is possible to detach it from the ground, it is indeed impure.

ואידך נמי הכתיב טמאים יהיו לכם ההיא כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחלוקת בהיסק ראשון אבל בהיסק שני אפילו תלוי בצואר גמל

The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “They shall be impure to you”? The Gemara answers: He understood that verse in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis is specifically with regard to the first lighting. The first lighting transforms an earthenware oven that did not yet completely dry into a vessel. However, with regard to the second lighting they do not disagree, even if it was hanging around a camel’s neck; since it had already been fired up once, it is impure.

אמר עולא והיסק ראשון לרבנן אפילו תלוי בצואר גמל

Ulla says: And with regard to the first lighting according to the Rabbis, even if it was hanging around a camel’s neck, since it had already been fired up once it is a full-fledged oven and is impure.

מתקיף לה רב אשי אי הכי אדמיפלגי בשברי תנור ליפלגו בתנור גופה השתא תנור גופה לרבי יהודה לא הוי מנא שבריו מיבעיא

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this line of reasoning: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to the shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to the oven itself. Now the oven itself, according to Rabbi Yehuda, is not considered a vessel; therefore, to say that its broken pieces are not vessels, is it necessary?

אלא אמר רב אשי לעולם כדאמרן מעיקרא ובעושה מעשה טפקא ורבי מאיר לדבריו דרבי יהודה קאמר לדידי אפילו בעושין מעין מלאכה אלא לדידך אודי לי מיהא דכהאי גוונא מלאכתו הוא

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is as we said initially, that it is referring to shards of any oven, and with which he crafts a ceramic board [tapka], and Rabbi Meir is speaking in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: According to my opinion, it is permitted to move even shards that serve any purpose. However, according to your opinion, agree with me at least that in a case of this sort, it is a function similar to their own original function. The shards can be used for baking.

ורבי יהודה לא דמי התם הסקו מבפנים הכא הסקו מבחוץ התם מעומד הכא לאו מעומד:

And Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not similar. There, in the case of an intact oven, its firing is from within. Here, with regard to the shard, its firing is from without. There, in the case of an intact oven, it bakes standing; here, it does not bake standing. Therefore, its function is not similar to its original function.

העיד רבי יוסי משום רבי אליעזר בן יעקב על שברי תנור ישן שניטלין בשבת ועל כיסויו שאינו צריך בית יד: אמר רבינא כמאן מטלטלינן האידנא כיסוי דתנורי דמתא מחסיא דאין להם בית אחיזה כמאן כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב

In that same Tosefta where Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle, and which is considered a vessel and may be moved as is, Ravina says: In accordance with whose opinion do we now move the oven covers in the city of Meḥasya that do not have handles? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.

מתני׳ האבן שבקירויה אם ממלאין בה ואינה נופלת ממלאין בה ואם לאו אין ממלאין בה

MISHNA: A stone that is in a gourd used to draw water [kiruya], if they fill it with water and the stone does not fall, one may fill with it on Shabbat, and if not, and the stone does fall, one may not fill with it.

זמורה שהיא קשורה בטפיח ממלאין בה בשבת

With regard to a vine branch that is tied to a pitcher, one may fill water with it on Shabbat because the branch became part of the vessel.

פקק החלון רבי אליעזר אומר בזמן שהוא קשור ותלוי פוקקין בו ואם לאו אין פוקקין בו וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך פוקקין בו:

With regard to a window shutter, Rabbi Eliezer says: When it is tied to and hanging from the window, i.e., it is not touching the ground, one may shutter the window with it, because it is not considered building; and if not, i.e., it is touching the ground, one may not shutter the window with it. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it.

גמ׳ תנן התם אבן שעל פי החבית מטה על צידה והיא נופלת אמר רבה אמר רבי אמי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא בשוכח אבל במניח נעשה בסיס לדבר האסור ורב יוסף אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא בשוכח אבל במניח נעשה כיסוי להחבית

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there: In the case of a stone that is atop a barrel and one wants to open the barrel, he tilts the barrel on its side and the stone falls. Rabba said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They only taught this in a case where one forgets the stone atop the barrel; however, in a case where one places the stone atop the barrel intentionally, the barrel becomes a base for a prohibited object, and it is therefore prohibited to move the barrel. And Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They only taught this in a case where one forgets it; however, in a case where one places it there, the stone becomes a cover for the barrel and it is permitted to use it like other barrel covers.

אמר רבה מותבינן אשמעתין האבן שבקירויה אם ממלאין בה ואינה נופלת ממלאין בה ולא היא התם כיון דהדקה שויא דופן

Rabba said: We raise an objection to our halakha from the mishna: With regard to a stone that is in a gourd used to draw water, if they fill it with water and the stone does not fall, one may fill with it on Shabbat. Apparently, if the stone is designated for a purpose, it is no longer set-aside. He rejects the proof: And that is not so, as these cases are not comparable. There, in the case of the stone in the gourd, since one attached it to the gourd, he rendered the stone a wall of the gourd and part of the vessel, unlike in the case of the stone atop the barrel.

אמר רב יוסף ומותבינן אשמעתין אם לאו אין ממלאין בה ולא היא התם כיון דלא הדקה בטולי בטלה

Rav Yosef said: And we raise an objection to our halakha from the mishna: And if not, and the stone does fall, one may not fill with it. A stone that is not attached is not considered to be part of the vessel and is therefore set-aside. He rejects the proof. And that is not so, as these cases are not comparable. There, since he did not attach the stone to the gourd, he negates its status as a part of the vessel and it remains set-aside.

במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר בעינן מעשה ומר סבר לא בעינן מעשה

The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Rabba, holds that we require an action to change the status of a stone or another set-aside object into a vessel, and one Sage, Rav Yosef, holds that we do not require an action.

ואזדו לטעמייהו דכי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי חנינא ואמרי לה אמר רבי זירא אמר רבי חנינא פעם אחת הלך רבי למקום אחד ומצא נדבך של אבנים ואמר לתלמידיו צאו וחשבו כדי שנשב עליהן למחר ולא הצריכן רבי למעשה

And they, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, follow their regular line of reasoning, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Ḥanina said, and some say that it was Rabbi Zeira who said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to one place and found a course of building stones, and he said to his students: Go out and think that you are designating these stones for Shabbat so that we may sit on them tomorrow on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not require them to perform an action with those stones. Thought alone was sufficient.

רבי יוחנן אמר הצריכן רבי למעשה מאי אמר להו רבי אמי אמר צאו ולמדום אמר להו רבי אסי אמר צאו ושפשפום אמר להו

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is not what happened. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi required them to perform an action to designate the stones. The Gemara asks: What action did he say to them to perform? Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Go out and arrange the stones. Rabbi Asi said that he said to them: Go out and rub the mortar off of them. Rabbi Ami requires a more significant action to render the stones a vessel.

איתמר רבי יוסי בן שאול אמר סואר של קורות הוה ורבי יוחנן בן שאול אמר גשוש של ספינה הוה מאן דאמר גשוש כל שכן סואר ומאן דאמר סואר אבל גשוש קפיד עליה:

It was stated that there was a dispute with regard to this matter. Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said: It was a new stack of beams, not stones. And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Shaul said: It was the sounding pole of a ship used to determine the depth of the water. The one who said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted sitting on a ship’s sounding pole, all the more so he permitted doing so in the case of beams. And with regard to the one who said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted sitting on a stack of beams, but in the case of the sounding pole he would prohibit doing so because it is set-aside due to monetary loss, as he is particular about it that it will not become warped and damaged.

זמורה שהיא קשורה כו׳: קשורה אין לא קשורה לא לימא מתניתין דלא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל

We learned in the mishna: With regard to a vine branch that is tied to a pitcher, one may fill water with it on Shabbat. The Gemara infers: If it is tied, yes, it is permitted; if it is not tied, no, it is prohibited. Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

דתניא חריות של דקל שגדרן לעצים ונמלך עליהן לישיבה צריך לקשור רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אין צריך לקשור

As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to hard branches of a palm tree that one cut for firewood or for construction, and then he reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for sitting, he must tie the branches together on Shabbat eve so that they will not be set-aside. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not tie them together, and nevertheless, it is permitted to move them. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, cut wood need not be specially prepared to be used on Shabbat.

אמר רב ששת אפילו תימא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הכא במאי עסקינן במחוברת באביה אי הכי קא משתמש במחובר לקרקע למטה משלשה רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא בתלושה גזירה שמא יקטום:

Rav Sheshet says: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, with what are we dealing here? With a case where the shoot is still connected to its origin, the vine. The Gemara asks: If so, he is making use of an item that is attached to the ground, and the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of any plant attached to the ground. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a branch attached to the vine below three handbreadths off the ground. A vine attached to the ground below three handbreadths off the ground was not prohibited in that decree, just as it is permitted to make use of tree roots adjacent to the ground. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that it is referring to a branch that is detached, nevertheless, its use is prohibited due to the decree lest one cut and straighten the branch to prepare it for use with the bucket. Therefore, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel teaches that there is no need for concern.

פקק החלון כו׳: אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הכל מודים שאין עושין אהל עראי בתחלה ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת לא נחלקו אלא להוסיף שרבי אליעזר אומר אין מוסיפין ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת וחכמים אומרים מוסיפין בשבת ואין צריך לומר ביום טוב וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך פוקקין בו:

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis dispute the case of a window shutter and in what manner one is permitted to shutter a window on Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees that one may not construct a temporary tent on a Festival for the first time, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. The tanna’im disagree only with regard to adding to an existing tent, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add to an existing structure on a Festival, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add to a temporary structure on Shabbat, and needless to say, one may do so on a Festival.

מאי בין כך ובין כך אמר רבי אבא אמר רב כהנא

We learned in the mishna that the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Both in this case and in that case, in this context? Rabbi Abba said that Rav Kahana 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 125: Leaving Muktzah

What do you do with the broken shards of an item that was (or wasn't) designated before Shabbat? The daf...

Shabbat 125

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 125

אם זרקה מבעוד יום לאשפה אסורה

If one threw the clay seal of a jug into the garbage dump while it is still day, before Shabbat, it is prohibited to move it on Shabbat because he indicated that he set it aside from use.

אמר בר המדורי אמר שמואל קרומיות של מחצלת מותר לטלטלם בשבת מאי טעמא אמר רבא בר המדורי אסברא לי מחצלת גופא למאי חזיא לכסויי ביה עפרא הני נמי חזיין לכסויי בהו טינופת

Bar Hamduri said that Shmuel said: With regard to shreds of reeds that separated from a mat, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Bar Hamduri explained it to me: The mat itself, for what use is it suited? It is suited to cover dirt with it. These shreds, too, are suited to cover filth with them.

אמר רבי זירא אמר רב שירי פרוזמיות אסור לטלטלן בשבת אמר אביי במטלניות שאין בהן שלש על שלש דלא חזיין לא לעניים ולא לעשירים:

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: With regard to the remains of cloaks [perozemiyyot], it is prohibited to move them on Shabbat. Abaye said: This is referring to small rags that do not have an area of three by three fingerbreadths, that are neither suited for use by the poor nor by the wealthy.

תנו רבנן שברי תנור ישן הרי הן ככל הכלים הניטלין בחצר דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר אין ניטלין העיד רבי יוסי משום רבי אליעזר בן יעקב על שברי תנור ישן שניטלין בשבת ועל כיסויו שאינו צריך בית יד

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: The shards of an old oven may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat like all of the vessels that may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They may not be moved. Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle.

במאי קמיפלגי אמר אביי בעושין מעין מלאכה ואין עושין מעין מלאכתן קמיפלגי ואזדא רבי יהודה לטעמיה ורבי מאיר לטעמיה

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? Abaye said: It is with regard to shards when they serve some function but do not serve a function similar to their own original function that they disagree. And Rabbi Yehuda follows his own line of reasoning, and Rabbi Meir follows his own line of reasoning, as they differed in the mishna.

מתקיף לה רבא אי הכי אדמיפלגי בשברי תנור ליפלגו בשברי כלים בעלמא

Rava strongly objects to this: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to ordinary shards. Why is the dispute specifically with regard to an oven?

אלא אמר רבא בשברי דהאי תנור קמיפלגי דתנן נתנו על פי הבור או על פי הדות ונתן שם אבן רבי יהודה אומר אם מסיק מלמטה והוא נסוק מלמעלה טמא ואם לאו טהור וחכמים אומרים הואיל והוסק מכל מקום טמא

Rather, Rava said: It is with regard to shards of this particular oven that they disagree, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a clay oven that is not attached to the ground with mortar in the standard manner, but rather, one placed it over the mouth of a pit or over the mouth of a cistern, and he placed a stone there between the wall of the pit and the oven to secure the oven in place, Rabbi Yehuda says: If one heats the oven from beneath the oven, inside the pit, and the oven is thereby heated at the top, the oven serves its standard function; it is a full-fledged utensil and it can become ritually impure. And if it is not attached so tightly that it is heated at the top, it is ritually pure, because it is not a full-fledged vessel. And the Rabbis say: Since it can be heated in some manner, it can become ritually impure, because it serves its standard purpose.

ובמאי קמיפלגי בהאי קרא תנור וכירים יותץ טמאים הם וטמאים יהיו לכם רבי יהודה סבר מחוסר נתיצה טמא שאין מחוסר נתיצה טהור ורבנן סברי טמאים יהיו לכם מכל מקום

And with regard to what do they disagree? It is with regard to this verse: “And everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be impure; whether oven, or stove, it shall be broken in pieces; they are impure, and they shall be impure to you” (Leviticus 11:35). Rabbi Yehuda holds: An oven that lacks smashing, i.e., it is whole and can be broken, can become impure. One that does not lack smashing, but it is situated in a place where it is not completely effective, is considered broken and is pure, i.e., it cannot become ritually impure. And the Rabbis hold that the verse comes to add: “They shall be impure to you,” in any case, under any circumstances.

ורבנן נמי הכתיב יותץ ההוא לאידך גיסא דסלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דחבריה בארעא כגופא דארעא דמי קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, too, isn’t it written: “They shall be broken into pieces,” and why don’t they interpret the verse in the same way that Rabbi Yehuda does? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis understand this verse from another direction, as it could have entered your mind to say: Since he attached it to the ground, its legal status is like that of the ground itself, and anything attached to the ground cannot become impure. Therefore, it teaches us that since it is possible to detach it from the ground, it is indeed impure.

ואידך נמי הכתיב טמאים יהיו לכם ההיא כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחלוקת בהיסק ראשון אבל בהיסק שני אפילו תלוי בצואר גמל

The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “They shall be impure to you”? The Gemara answers: He understood that verse in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis is specifically with regard to the first lighting. The first lighting transforms an earthenware oven that did not yet completely dry into a vessel. However, with regard to the second lighting they do not disagree, even if it was hanging around a camel’s neck; since it had already been fired up once, it is impure.

אמר עולא והיסק ראשון לרבנן אפילו תלוי בצואר גמל

Ulla says: And with regard to the first lighting according to the Rabbis, even if it was hanging around a camel’s neck, since it had already been fired up once it is a full-fledged oven and is impure.

מתקיף לה רב אשי אי הכי אדמיפלגי בשברי תנור ליפלגו בתנור גופה השתא תנור גופה לרבי יהודה לא הוי מנא שבריו מיבעיא

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this line of reasoning: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to the shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to the oven itself. Now the oven itself, according to Rabbi Yehuda, is not considered a vessel; therefore, to say that its broken pieces are not vessels, is it necessary?

אלא אמר רב אשי לעולם כדאמרן מעיקרא ובעושה מעשה טפקא ורבי מאיר לדבריו דרבי יהודה קאמר לדידי אפילו בעושין מעין מלאכה אלא לדידך אודי לי מיהא דכהאי גוונא מלאכתו הוא

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is as we said initially, that it is referring to shards of any oven, and with which he crafts a ceramic board [tapka], and Rabbi Meir is speaking in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: According to my opinion, it is permitted to move even shards that serve any purpose. However, according to your opinion, agree with me at least that in a case of this sort, it is a function similar to their own original function. The shards can be used for baking.

ורבי יהודה לא דמי התם הסקו מבפנים הכא הסקו מבחוץ התם מעומד הכא לאו מעומד:

And Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not similar. There, in the case of an intact oven, its firing is from within. Here, with regard to the shard, its firing is from without. There, in the case of an intact oven, it bakes standing; here, it does not bake standing. Therefore, its function is not similar to its original function.

העיד רבי יוסי משום רבי אליעזר בן יעקב על שברי תנור ישן שניטלין בשבת ועל כיסויו שאינו צריך בית יד: אמר רבינא כמאן מטלטלינן האידנא כיסוי דתנורי דמתא מחסיא דאין להם בית אחיזה כמאן כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב

In that same Tosefta where Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle, and which is considered a vessel and may be moved as is, Ravina says: In accordance with whose opinion do we now move the oven covers in the city of Meḥasya that do not have handles? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.

מתני׳ האבן שבקירויה אם ממלאין בה ואינה נופלת ממלאין בה ואם לאו אין ממלאין בה

MISHNA: A stone that is in a gourd used to draw water [kiruya], if they fill it with water and the stone does not fall, one may fill with it on Shabbat, and if not, and the stone does fall, one may not fill with it.

זמורה שהיא קשורה בטפיח ממלאין בה בשבת

With regard to a vine branch that is tied to a pitcher, one may fill water with it on Shabbat because the branch became part of the vessel.

פקק החלון רבי אליעזר אומר בזמן שהוא קשור ותלוי פוקקין בו ואם לאו אין פוקקין בו וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך פוקקין בו:

With regard to a window shutter, Rabbi Eliezer says: When it is tied to and hanging from the window, i.e., it is not touching the ground, one may shutter the window with it, because it is not considered building; and if not, i.e., it is touching the ground, one may not shutter the window with it. And the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it.

גמ׳ תנן התם אבן שעל פי החבית מטה על צידה והיא נופלת אמר רבה אמר רבי אמי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא בשוכח אבל במניח נעשה בסיס לדבר האסור ורב יוסף אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא בשוכח אבל במניח נעשה כיסוי להחבית

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there: In the case of a stone that is atop a barrel and one wants to open the barrel, he tilts the barrel on its side and the stone falls. Rabba said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They only taught this in a case where one forgets the stone atop the barrel; however, in a case where one places the stone atop the barrel intentionally, the barrel becomes a base for a prohibited object, and it is therefore prohibited to move the barrel. And Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They only taught this in a case where one forgets it; however, in a case where one places it there, the stone becomes a cover for the barrel and it is permitted to use it like other barrel covers.

אמר רבה מותבינן אשמעתין האבן שבקירויה אם ממלאין בה ואינה נופלת ממלאין בה ולא היא התם כיון דהדקה שויא דופן

Rabba said: We raise an objection to our halakha from the mishna: With regard to a stone that is in a gourd used to draw water, if they fill it with water and the stone does not fall, one may fill with it on Shabbat. Apparently, if the stone is designated for a purpose, it is no longer set-aside. He rejects the proof: And that is not so, as these cases are not comparable. There, in the case of the stone in the gourd, since one attached it to the gourd, he rendered the stone a wall of the gourd and part of the vessel, unlike in the case of the stone atop the barrel.

אמר רב יוסף ומותבינן אשמעתין אם לאו אין ממלאין בה ולא היא התם כיון דלא הדקה בטולי בטלה

Rav Yosef said: And we raise an objection to our halakha from the mishna: And if not, and the stone does fall, one may not fill with it. A stone that is not attached is not considered to be part of the vessel and is therefore set-aside. He rejects the proof. And that is not so, as these cases are not comparable. There, since he did not attach the stone to the gourd, he negates its status as a part of the vessel and it remains set-aside.

במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר בעינן מעשה ומר סבר לא בעינן מעשה

The Gemara explains: With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, Rabba, holds that we require an action to change the status of a stone or another set-aside object into a vessel, and one Sage, Rav Yosef, holds that we do not require an action.

ואזדו לטעמייהו דכי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי חנינא ואמרי לה אמר רבי זירא אמר רבי חנינא פעם אחת הלך רבי למקום אחד ומצא נדבך של אבנים ואמר לתלמידיו צאו וחשבו כדי שנשב עליהן למחר ולא הצריכן רבי למעשה

And they, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, follow their regular line of reasoning, as when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Ḥanina said, and some say that it was Rabbi Zeira who said that Rabbi Ḥanina said: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to one place and found a course of building stones, and he said to his students: Go out and think that you are designating these stones for Shabbat so that we may sit on them tomorrow on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not require them to perform an action with those stones. Thought alone was sufficient.

רבי יוחנן אמר הצריכן רבי למעשה מאי אמר להו רבי אמי אמר צאו ולמדום אמר להו רבי אסי אמר צאו ושפשפום אמר להו

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is not what happened. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi required them to perform an action to designate the stones. The Gemara asks: What action did he say to them to perform? Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Go out and arrange the stones. Rabbi Asi said that he said to them: Go out and rub the mortar off of them. Rabbi Ami requires a more significant action to render the stones a vessel.

איתמר רבי יוסי בן שאול אמר סואר של קורות הוה ורבי יוחנן בן שאול אמר גשוש של ספינה הוה מאן דאמר גשוש כל שכן סואר ומאן דאמר סואר אבל גשוש קפיד עליה:

It was stated that there was a dispute with regard to this matter. Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said: It was a new stack of beams, not stones. And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Shaul said: It was the sounding pole of a ship used to determine the depth of the water. The one who said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted sitting on a ship’s sounding pole, all the more so he permitted doing so in the case of beams. And with regard to the one who said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted sitting on a stack of beams, but in the case of the sounding pole he would prohibit doing so because it is set-aside due to monetary loss, as he is particular about it that it will not become warped and damaged.

זמורה שהיא קשורה כו׳: קשורה אין לא קשורה לא לימא מתניתין דלא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל

We learned in the mishna: With regard to a vine branch that is tied to a pitcher, one may fill water with it on Shabbat. The Gemara infers: If it is tied, yes, it is permitted; if it is not tied, no, it is prohibited. Let us say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

דתניא חריות של דקל שגדרן לעצים ונמלך עליהן לישיבה צריך לקשור רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אין צריך לקשור

As it was taught in a baraita: With regard to hard branches of a palm tree that one cut for firewood or for construction, and then he reconsidered their designation and decided to use them for sitting, he must tie the branches together on Shabbat eve so that they will not be set-aside. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not tie them together, and nevertheless, it is permitted to move them. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, cut wood need not be specially prepared to be used on Shabbat.

אמר רב ששת אפילו תימא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הכא במאי עסקינן במחוברת באביה אי הכי קא משתמש במחובר לקרקע למטה משלשה רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא בתלושה גזירה שמא יקטום:

Rav Sheshet says: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, with what are we dealing here? With a case where the shoot is still connected to its origin, the vine. The Gemara asks: If so, he is making use of an item that is attached to the ground, and the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of any plant attached to the ground. The Gemara answers: This is referring to a branch attached to the vine below three handbreadths off the ground. A vine attached to the ground below three handbreadths off the ground was not prohibited in that decree, just as it is permitted to make use of tree roots adjacent to the ground. Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that it is referring to a branch that is detached, nevertheless, its use is prohibited due to the decree lest one cut and straighten the branch to prepare it for use with the bucket. Therefore, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel teaches that there is no need for concern.

פקק החלון כו׳: אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הכל מודים שאין עושין אהל עראי בתחלה ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת לא נחלקו אלא להוסיף שרבי אליעזר אומר אין מוסיפין ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת וחכמים אומרים מוסיפין בשבת ואין צריך לומר ביום טוב וחכמים אומרים בין כך ובין כך פוקקין בו:

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis dispute the case of a window shutter and in what manner one is permitted to shutter a window on Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees that one may not construct a temporary tent on a Festival for the first time, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. The tanna’im disagree only with regard to adding to an existing tent, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add to an existing structure on a Festival, and needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may add to a temporary structure on Shabbat, and needless to say, one may do so on a Festival.

מאי בין כך ובין כך אמר רבי אבא אמר רב כהנא

We learned in the mishna that the Rabbis say: Both in this case and in that case one may shutter with it. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Both in this case and in that case, in this context? Rabbi Abba said that Rav Kahana said:

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

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

Scroll To Top