Shabbat 29

גוי שחקק קב בבקעת ישראל מסיקה ביום טוב ואמאי נולד הוא לדבריהם דרבי אליעזר ורבי עקיבא קאמר ליה וליה לא סבירא ליה

When a gentile carved out a vessel the size of a kav from a piece of wood on a Festival and thereby rendered it a new vessel, a Jew may burn the vessel on a Festival ab initio. And why may he do so? This new vessel that was made from the wood is an object that came into being [nolad] on a Festival, and is set-aside [muktze]. Since Rav Adda bar Ahava permitted doing so, apparently he holds that the laws of set-aside do not apply on a Festival, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: Rav Adda bar Ahava said this statement in explanation of the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in the mishna; however, he himself does not hold that way. Although he explained the opinions in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he himself does not hold that that is the halakha.

רבא אמר היינו טעמא דרבי אליעזר לפי שאין מדליקין בפתילה שאינה מחורכת ולא בסמרטוטין שאינן מחורכין אלא הא דתני רב יוסף שלש על שלש מצומצמות למאי הלכתא לענין טומאה דתנן שלש על שלש שאמרו חוץ מן המלל דברי רבי שמעון וחכמים אומרים שלש על שלש מכוונות:

Rava said, this is the reasoning behind Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion with regard to lighting the wick: Because he holds that one may neither light on Shabbat using a wick that is not slightly singed and prepared for lighting nor light with rags that were not singed before Shabbat. If a person singes the wick slightly before lighting it, it will burn well. A wick that has not been singed does not burn well and will not show the appropriate deference to Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, that which Rav Yosef taught: Three by three exactly, to what halakha is it relevant? According to Rava’s explanation, the precise size of the garment used in making the wick is irrelevant. The Gemara responds: Rav Yosef’s statement was with regard to another matter, the halakhot of ritual impurity. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Kelim: Three by three fingerbreadths that they stated as the smallest sized garment that can become ritually impure, excludes the portion used for the hem, i.e., those threads that emerge at the edge of the garment and are sewn into a hem; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And the Rabbis say: Three by three exactly, even including the hem. That is the context of Rav Yosef’s statement: Three by three exactly.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים דברי רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון מתיר מסיקין בתמרין אכלן אין מסיקין בגרעיניהן דברי רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון מתיר מסיקין באגוזים אכלן אין מסיקין בקליפותיהן דברי רבי יהודה ורבי שמעון מתיר

With regard to the statement cited above, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that there is a dispute between the tanna’im on this issue: One may only kindle a fire with whole vessels and one may not kindle a fire with broken vessels; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits kindling a fire even with broken vessels. An additional halakha: One may kindle a fire with whole dates on a Festival, and if he ate them, he may not kindle a fire with their pits as they are set-aside; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits kindling a fire with the pits. Furthermore, one may kindle a fire with whole nuts on a Festival, and if he ate them, he may not kindle a fire with their shells; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits doing so.

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן קמייתא בההיא קאמר רבי יהודה משום דמעיקרא כלי והשתא שבר כלי והוה ליה נולד ואסור אבל תמרים דמעיקרא גרעינין והשתא גרעינין אימא שפיר דמי ואי אשמעינן גרעינין הוה אמינא דמעיקרא מכסיין והשתא מיגליין אבל קליפי אגוזין דמעיקרא מיגלו והשתא מיגלו אימא שפיר דמי צריכא

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to cite all three of these cases because each teaches a novel idea. As, had Rav taught us only the first halakha, we would have thought that it is specifically in that case, with regard to burning broken vessels, that Rabbi Yehuda said that it is prohibited, as initially it was a vessel and now it is a broken vessel, and therefore it is considered an object that came into being [nolad] and prohibited; however, dates, initially there were pits in the dates and now they remain pits, say that one may well do so. And had Rav taught us only with regard to date pits I would have said that they are prohibited because initially they were concealed within the fruit and now they are exposed, it is a case of an object that came into being and prohibited. However, nutshells, which initially were exposed and now are exposed, as they were before, say that one may well do so. Therefore, it was necessary to teach all of these cases.

והא דרב לאו בפירוש איתמר אלא מכללא איתמר דרב אכל תמרי ושדא קשייתא לבוכיא אמר ליה רבי חייא בר פחתי כנגדו ביום טוב אסור קיבלה מיניה או לא קיבלה מיניה

And the Gemara adds: This halakha of Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference based on conclusions drawn from Rav’s actions and not from his explicit statements. There was an instance where Rav ate dates on a weekday and threw the pits into the oven. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Son of noblemen, the corresponding action, throwing pits into an oven, is prohibited on a Festival. The Gemara asks: Did Rav accept this halakha from him or did he not accept it from him?

תא שמע דכי אתא רב לבבל אכל תמרי ושדא קשייתא לחיותא מאי לאו בפרסייאתא ולא קיבלה לא בארמיאתא הואיל וחזי אגב אימייהו

Come and hear: When Rav came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he ate dates on a Festival and threw their pits to the animals so that they may eat them. Wasn’t it a case involving Persian dates, which are quality dates whose fruit comes completely off the pits, leaving the pits with no trace of fruit? Ostensibly, they are completely set-aside as they are of no use at all to people. And the fact that Rav threw the pits to the animals indicates that he did not accept this halakha from Rabbi Ḥiyya, and he holds that there is no prohibition in that case. The Gemara replies: No, this is a case involving Aramean dates whose fruit does not come off completely, and remnants of the date remain attached to the pit. These pits, since they are still fit for use due to their mother, i.e., the fruit itself, one is permitted to carry them.

אמר ליה רב שמואל בר בר חנה לרב יוסף לרבי יהודה דאמר מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים כיון דאדליק בהו פורתא הוה ליה שברי כלים וכי קא מהפך באיסורא קא מהפך דעבד כדרב מתנה דאמר רב מתנה אמר רב עצים שנשרו מן הדקל לתנור ביום טוב מרבה עצים מוכנין ומסיקן

Rav Shmuel bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that one may kindle a fire with whole vessels, and one may not kindle a fire with broken vessels, how it is possible to use whole vessels? Once they are ignited a bit, they become broken vessels, and when one turns the wood over to accelerate their ignition, he turns them over in a prohibited manner, as it is prohibited to light with broken vessels. The Gemara answers: This is a case where he acted in accordance with the statement of Rav Mattana. As Rav Mattana said that Rav said: Branches that fell from a palm tree into an oven on a Festival, since these branches were attached to the tree at the onset of the Festival, they are set-aside and it is prohibited to move them. Nevertheless, he can remedy the situation if he adds wood that was prepared for burning prior to the Festival, until the majority of the wood in the oven is not set-aside, and then kindles them. Since the majority of the wood is permitted, he need not concern himself with the minority. One may do the same when burning vessels by adding wood that is not set-aside.

רב המנונא אמר הכא בפחות משלשה על שלשה עסקינן מקולי מטלניות שנו כאן

Rav Hamnuna said a different explanation of the dispute in the mishna. In his opinion, here we are dealing with a garment that is smaller than three by three handbreadths, and they taught here halakhot established by the Sages with regard to insignificant small cloths.

ואזדא רבי אליעזר לטעמיה ורבי עקיבא לטעמיה דתנן פחות משלשה על שלשה שהתקינו לפקק בו את המרחץ ולנער בו את הקדירה ולקנח בו את הרחיים בין מן המוכן ובין שאין מן המוכן טמא דברי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע אומר בין מן המוכן ובין שלא מן המוכן טהור רבי עקיבא אומר מן המוכן טמא ושלא מן המוכן טהור ואמר עולא ואיתימא רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הכל מודים זרקו באשפה דברי הכל טהור

And Rabbi Eliezer followed his line of reasoning expressed elsewhere, and Rabbi Akiva followed his line of reasoning expressed elsewhere. As we learned in a mishna in tractate Kelim: A cloth smaller than three by three handbreadths that was utilized to plug the bath, and to pour from a boiling pot, and to wipe the millstone, whether this cloth was expressly prepared for that purpose or whether it was not prepared, it can become ritually impure; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Whether it was prepared or whether it was not prepared, it is ritually pure, i.e., it cannot become ritually impure. Rabbi Akiva distinguishes between the cases and says: If it was prepared it is ritually impure, and if it was not prepared it is ritually pure. And Ulla said, and some say that Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees that a cloth this size, if one threw it into the garbage dump, it is ritually pure. His discarding of the cloth indicates that he no longer considers this cloth a garment and no longer considers it significant.

הניחו בקופסא דברי הכל טמא לא נחלקו אלא שתלאו במגוד או שהניחו לאחורי הדלת רבי אליעזר סבר מדלא זרקו באשפה דעתיה עילויה ומאי קרי ליה שלא מן המוכן דלגבי קופסא לאו מוכן הוא ורבי יהושע סבר מדלא הניחו בקופסא בטולי בטליה ומאי קרי ליה מוכן דלגבי אשפה מוכן הוא ורבי עקיבא בתלאו במגוד סבר כרבי אליעזר בהניחו אחורי הדלת סבר לה כרבי יהושע

If one placed it in a box, everyone agrees that it can become ritually impure because his placing the cloth in a box indicates that he considers the cloth significant and is keeping it in order to use it. They only disagreed in a case where one hung the garment on a dryer, i.e., a stake in the wall, or where he placed it behind a door. Rabbi Eliezer held: From the fact that he did not throw it in the garbage dump, it is certainly on his mind and he is planning to use it. And what is the reason that he called it not prepared? It is because, relative to a cloth placed in a box, it is not considered prepared for use. And Rabbi Yehoshua held that since he did not place it in a box, certainly he has negated its garment status. And what is the reason that he called it prepared? Because relative to one thrown in the garbage, this garment is prepared for use, although, in fact, the cloth has already been negated. And Rabbi Akiva, in the case where he hung it on a dryer, held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one has not yet negated it from use and it can therefore become ritually impure. In the case where he placed it behind a door, Rabbi Akiva held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that, in doing so, he negated its garment status, and it can no longer become ritually impure.

והדר ביה רבי עקיבא לגביה דרבי יהושע ממאי אמר רבא מדקתני פתילת הבגד מאי איריא דתני פתילת הבגד ליתני פתילה של בגד מאי פתילת הבגד דעדיין בגד הוא:

The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion in favor of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and held in accordance with his opinion. And from where do we know this? Rava said: From the term that we learned in our mishna: The wick of a garment [petilat habeged]. Why did it specifically teach: The wick of a garment? Teach that halakha using the phrase: A wick made from a garment. What is the reason that the mishna taught: A wick of a garment? It is because it remains a garment. Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva deemed it ritually pure, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.

מתני׳ לא יקוב אדם שפופרת של ביצה וימלאנה שמן ויתננה על פי הנר בשביל שתהא מנטפת ואפילו היא של חרס ורבי יהודה מתיר אבל אם חברה היוצר מתחלה מותר מפני שהוא כלי אחד לא ימלא אדם קערה של שמן ויתננה בצד הנר ויתן ראש הפתילה בתוכה בשביל שתהא שואבת ורבי יהודה מתיר:

MISHNA: The fundamental dispute in this mishna is with regard to the determination whether or not indirect acts of kindling and extinguishing fall within the parameters of the prohibition on Shabbat. The Rabbis said: A person may not pierce a hole in an eggshell and fill it with oil, and place it over the mouth of a lamp so that the egg will drip additional oil into the lamp and thereby extend the time that it burns. And this is the ruling even if it is not an actual egg but an earthenware vessel. And Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so. However, if the craftsman, who crafts ceramic vessels, attached the egg to the lamp from the outset, one is permitted to fill it with oil because it constitutes a single, large vessel. The Rabbis decreed that a person may not fill a bowl with oil, and place it beside the lamp, and place the unlit head of the wick into the bowl so that it draws additional oil from the bowl and thereby extend the time that the lamp burns. And Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so.

גמ׳ וצריכא דאי אשמעינן שפופרת של ביצה בהא קאמרי רבנן דכיון דלא מאיסא אתי לאסתפוקי מינה אבל של חרס דמאיסא אימא מודו ליה לרבי יהודה ואי אשמעינן של חרס בהא קאמר רבי יהודה אבל בההיא אימא מודי להו לרבנן ואי אשמעינן הנך תרתי בהני קאמר רבי יהודה משום דלא מיפסק אבל קערה דמיפסקא אימא מודי להו לרבנן ואי אשמעינן בההיא בההיא קאמרי רבנן אבל בהני תרתי אימא מודו לרבי יהודה צריכא:

GEMARA: The Gemara comments on the fact that the mishna cited three cases that all share the same rationale: And it was necessary to cite all of the aforementioned cases because it is impossible to derive one from the other. As, had the Gemara only taught us the prohibition of an eggshell, I would have said that, specifically in that case, the Rabbis said that it is prohibited to do so. Since the egg is not dirty and disgusting, there is room for concern that one might come to take oil from it, which would be tantamount to taking oil from a burning lamp on Shabbat, because it causes the flame to be extinguished faster. However, an earthenware tube that is disgusting, say that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda that there is no room for concern, and even according to their opinion it would be permitted. And, conversely, had the Gemara only taught us the prohibition of an earthenware tube, I would have said that, specifically in that case, Rabbi Yehuda says that one is permitted to do so because it is disgusting, as explained above; however, in that case of the eggshell that is not disgusting, say that he agrees with the Rabbis that it is prohibited. And had the Gemara taught us only those two cases of the eggshell and the earthenware tube, I would have said that, specifically in those cases, Rabbi Yehuda said that it is permitted because there is no separation between the lamp and the second receptacle. However, in the case of a bowl, which is separate, say that he agrees with the Rabbis that it is prohibited. And, conversely, had the Gemara only taught us in that case of the added bowl, I would have said that only in that case did the Rabbis say it is prohibited because it is separate. However, in these two cases of the eggshell and the ceramic tube, I would say that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda and permit doing so. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to specifically state the halakha in each of the cases cited.

ואם חברה היוצר מתחלה מותר וכו׳: תנא אם חברה בסיד ובחרסית מותר והאנן יוצר תנן מאי יוצר כעין יוצר:

And we also learned in our mishna that if the craftsman attached the tube to the lamp from the outset, it is permitted to fill it with oil and use it. It was taught in a baraita that even if a homeowner attached it to the vessel before Shabbat by means of plaster or with dry potter’s clay, it is permitted. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we specifically learn in the mishna: If the craftsman attached it from the outset, not a layman? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of craftsman in the mishna? It refers to any attachment similar to the attachment of the craftsman.

תניא אמר רבי יהודה פעם אחת שבתינו בעליית בית נתזה בלוד והביאו לנו שפופרת של ביצה ומלאנוה שמן ונקבנוה והנחנוה על פי הנר והיה שם רבי טרפון וזקנים ולא אמרו לנו דבר אמרו לו משם ראיה שאני בית נתזה דזריזין הן

With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: One time we spent our Shabbat in the upper story of the house of Nit’za in the city of Lod. And they brought us an eggshell, and we filled it with oil, and pierced it, and left it over the lamp in order to extend its burning. And Rabbi Tarfon and other Elders were there and they did not say anything to us. Apparently, there is no prohibition. The Rabbis said to him: Do you bring proof from there? The legal status of the Elders who were sitting in the house of Nit’za is different. They are vigilant. There is no room for concern lest they use the oil in the eggshell and accelerate the extinguishing of the lamp. However, in every other circumstance, doing so is prohibited.

אבין ציפוראה גרר ספסלא בעיליתא דשישא לעילא מרבי יצחק בן אלעזר אמר ליה אי שתוקי לך כדשתיקו ליה חבריא לרבי יהודה נפיק מיניה חורבא גזירה עליתא דשישא אטו עליתא דעלמא

The Gemara relates: Avin from the city of Tzippori dragged a bench in an upper story, whose floor was made of marble, before Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar. Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said to him: If I remain silent and say nothing to you, as Rabbi Tarfon and the members of the group of Elders were silent and said nothing to Rabbi Yehuda, damage will result, as it will lead to unfounded leniency in the future. Had they told Rabbi Yehuda at that time that it is prohibited to puncture the eggshell, he would not have disagreed with the Rabbis. He would not have mistakenly derived a general leniency. So too, here the Sages issued a decree on a marble-floored upper story due to a standard upper story with an earth floor. One who drags a bench on an earth floor will create a furrow.

ריש כנישתא דבצרה גרר ספסלא לעילא מרבי ירמיה רבה אמר ליה כמאן כרבי שמעון אימר דאמר רבי שמעון בגדולים דלא אפשר בקטנים מי אמר ופליגא דעולא דאמר עולא מחלוקת בקטנים אבל בגדולים דברי הכל מותר

On the topic of dragging, the Gemara relates that the Head of the Kenesset of Batzra dragged a bench before Rabbi Yirmeya the Great on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you permit yourself to drag a bench on Shabbat? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Say that Rabbi Shimon said his statement specifically with regard to large benches that are impossible to move from place to place in any other way, but in the case of small benches did he say that one is permitted to drag them? And this disagrees with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: The dispute with regard to dragging is in the case of small benches; however, in the case of large benches, everyone agrees that one is permitted to drag them, as there is no other way to move them.

מתיב רב יוסף רבי שמעון אומר גורר אדם מטה כסא וספסל ובלבד שלא יתכוין לעשות חריץ קתני גדולים וקתני קטנים קשיא לתרווייהו

Rav Yosef raised an objection from what was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: One may drag a bed, a chair, and a bench across the floor on Shabbat even though it creates a furrow, as long as he does not intend to create a furrow. This baraita teaches about large objects, like a bed, and teaches about small objects, like a chair. If so, this is difficult for both Rabbi Yirmeya the Great and for Ulla. Rabbi Yirmeya holds that Rabbi Shimon prohibits dragging even small furniture. Ulla holds that even Rabbi Yehuda permits dragging large pieces of furniture. According to his opinion, there is no need for Rabbi Shimon to state that it is permitted.

עולא מתרץ לטעמיה ורבי ירמיה רבה מתרץ לטעמיה עולא מתרץ לטעמיה מטה דומיא דכסא ורבי ירמיה רבה מתרץ לטעמיה כסא דומיא דמטה

The Gemara answers that Ulla reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning and Rabbi Yirmeya the Great reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning. The Gemara explains: Ulla reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning: A bed, similar to a chair; the baraita is referring here to a small bed that can be carried like a chair, with regard to which there is a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yirmeya the Great reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning: A chair, similar to a bed; the baraita is referring to dragging a heavy chair that cannot be moved in any other way.

מתיב רבה מוכרי כסות מוכרין כדרכן ובלבד שלא יתכוין בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים והצנועין מפשילין במקל לאחוריהן והא הכא דאפשר למיעבד כצנועין דכי קטנים דמי וכי לא מתכוין שרי רבי שמעון לכתחלה תיובתא דרבי ירמיה רבה תיובתא:

Rabba raised an objection to Rabbi Yirmeya’s statement from that which we learned in a mishna: Clothing merchants who sell garments made of diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, may sell them as they normally would to gentiles, and they may place the garments that they are selling on their shoulders and need not be concerned about the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds, as long as the merchant does not intend to benefit from the garments in the sun as protection from the sun, or in the rain as protection from the rain. However, the modest people, those who are particularly fastidious in performing mitzvot, would suspend the wool and linen garments on a stick behind them. And here, in the case of dragging benches, where it is possible to act like the modest people, as the clothes are similar to small benches, and nevertheless, when one does not intend to perform the prohibited action, Rabbi Shimon permits dragging even ab initio. Rabbi Shimon holds that one who does not intend to violate a prohibition need not take an alternative course of action due to concern that resulting from his action, the prohibited act might come to be performed. Based on that principle, it is clear that Rabbi Shimon would permit dragging small benches since one does not intend to create a furrow in dragging them. This is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rabbi Yirmeya the Great, who held that dragging small objects is prohibited according to Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

מתני׳ המכבה את הנר מפני שהוא מתירא מפני גוים ומפני ליסטים מפני רוח רעה מפני החולה שיישן פטור כחס על הנר כחס על השמן כחס על הפתילה חייב רבי יוסי פוטר בכולן חוץ מן הפתילה מפני שהוא עושה פחם:

MISHNA: One who extinguishes the lamp on Shabbat because he is afraid due to gentiles, from whom he is hiding in his home, and due to thieves, or if one is afraid due to an evil spirit, i.e., he is depressed and prefers sitting in the dark, or if he extinguished the flame due to the sick person so that he will sleep, he is exempt. However, in a case where he extinguishes the flame in order to spare the lamp, spare the oil, or spare the wick, he is liable. Rabbi Yosei exempts him in all of those cases, as in his opinion no labor prohibited by Torah law is being performed by extinguishing the flame, except for the case where he seeks to spare the wick. Only in that case is extinguishing a creative action because he makes the wick into charcoal by extinguishing the flame.