Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 23, 2020 | כ״ט בניסן 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 48

Today’s daf is dedicated in honor of a number of birthdays. In honor of Akiva Blander’s birthday by his parents, Peri Rosenfeld and Stuart Blander. He lights up our lives with his wry humor and his ongoing support of our learning the daf. In honor of Rivka Greenstone’s birthday from her parents David and Shira. And in honor of my son, Moshe’s birthday. 

Two events happened in the house of the Exilarch in which Raba was critical of the behavior of a servant – one regarding hatmana/warming water on Shabbat and one regarding covering a barrel with a kerchief. If one uses pieces of wool generally used for making clothing, but one time it was used for hatmana, would the wool be allowed to be carried on a different Shabbat as it was at some point useful on Shabbat? Can one refill the wool stuffing of a pillow if it falls out on Shabbat? Can one put the stuffing in to make the pillow? What about cutting out the part for the neck of clothing or untying the neck that was sewn together by the launderer? The gemara then talks about uncovering a sealed barrel – is that the same as cutting out the part for the neck in a new shirt? The gemara then discusses different issues regarding items that are temporarily connected – are they considered connecting for purity/impurity issues? On what does it depend?

תוכן זה תורגם גם ל: עברית

אסוקי הבלא דזיתים מסקי הבלא דשומשמין לא מסקי הבלא

causing heat to rise, i.e., heating food that is not actually insulated in it, but merely resting upon it, the residue of olives causes heat to rise. Therefore, it is prohibited even to place cooked food upon it. However, the residue of sesame does not cause heat to rise to that extent. Therefore, it is permitted to place food upon it.

רבה ורבי זירא איקלעו לבי ריש גלותא חזיוה לההוא עבדא דאנח כוזא דמיא אפומא דקומקומא נזהיה רבה אמר ליה רבי זירא מאי שנא ממיחם על גבי מיחם אמר ליה התם אוקומי קא מוקים הכא אולודי קא מוליד

The Gemara relates an anecdote somewhat relevant to the previous discussion: Rabba and Rabbi Zeira happened to come to the house of the Exilarch on Shabbat, and saw this servant who placed a jug [kuza] of cold water on the mouth of a kettle filled with hot water. Rabba rebuked him for having acted contrary to the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabba: How is this case different from placing an urn on top of another urn, which is permitted on Shabbat? Rabba said to him: There, when he places one urn on top of another urn, he merely preserves the heat in the upper urn; therefore, it is permitted. Here, in the case where he places the jug of cold water on the mouth of a kettle, he is generating heat in the water in the upper vessel; therefore, it is prohibited.

הדר חזייה דפרס דסתודר אפומיה דכובא ואנח נטלא עילויה נזהיה רבה אמר ליה רבי זירא אמאי אמר ליה השתא חזית לסוף חזייה דקא מעצר ליה אמר ליה מאי שנא מפרונקא אמר ליה התם לא קפיד עילויה הכא קפיד עילויה:

The Gemara continues: Rabba then saw that same servant spread a kerchief [dastodar] over a vat of water and place a cup used to draw water from the vat, on the kerchief. Once again, Rabba rebuked him for having acted improperly. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Why did you rebuke him? Rabba said to him: Now, see what will happen. Ultimately, he saw that the servant was squeezing out the water that was absorbed by the kerchief, thereby violating a Torah prohibition. Nevertheless, Rabbi Zeira said to him: How is this case different from that of a cloth [parvanka], which one is permitted to spread over a vat even on Shabbat? Rabba said to him: There is a distinction between the two cases: There, in the case of the cloth, he is not particular about it; even if it gets wet, he will not come to squeeze it dry. Here, with regard to the kerchief, he is particular about it, and he will wring it so that it will not remain wet.

ולא בתבן: בעא מיניה רב אדא בר מתנה מאביי מוכין שטמן בהן מהו לטלטלן בשבת

We learned in the mishna: And one may neither insulate a pot in straw, nor in the residue of grapes that were pressed for their juice, nor in soft material. Rav Adda bar Mattana raised a dilemma before Abaye: With regard to swatches of soft material in which he insulated a pot, what is the halakha with regard to moving that material on Shabbat? Ordinarily, swatches of materials of that kind are set-aside because they have no use. Therefore, moving them on Shabbat is prohibited. Do we say that since they are now being used to insulate a pot, they assume the legal status of a utensil, which may be moved on Shabbat?

אמר ליה וכי מפני שאין לו קופה של תבן עומד ומפקיר קופה של מוכין

Abaye said to him: Just because he does not now have a basket of straw in which to insulate his food, does he stand up and renounce his basket of soft material? Obviously, he would have preferred to insulate his food in straw, as it is less expensive. The only reason that he used that material was because there was no straw available at the time. However, he does not want the swatches of material to be used for any other purpose, lest it be ruined. Therefore, it remains set-aside.

לימא מסייע ליה טומנין בגיזי צמר ובציפי צמר ובלשונות של ארגמן ובמוכין ואין מטלטלין אותן

The Gemara asks: Let us say that the following baraita supports him: One may insulate a pot of food on Friday afternoon in woolen fleece, in combed wool, in tabs of wool dyed purple, and in swatches of soft material; however, he may not move them. Apparently, this is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.

אי משום הא לא איריא הכי קאמר אם לא טמן בהן אין מטלטלין אותן

The Gemara rejects this proof: If that is the reason, there is no conclusive argument, as it is saying in the baraita as follows: If, however, he did not insulate a pot in them, he may not move them on Shabbat. In that case, they remain earmarked for their own purpose and are therefore set-aside [muktze].

אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא חזי למזגא עלייהו קמשמע לן:

The Gemara questions this last assertion: If so, what is the reason to say that? Obviously, those materials are set-aside. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that all these materials are suitable for one to sit on them, and, consequently, their legal status is that of utensils, which may be moved. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not so, and they may not be moved due to the prohibition of set-aside.

רב חסדא שרא לאהדורי אודרא לבי סדיא בשבתא איתיביה רב חנן בר חסדא לרב חסדא מתירין בית הצואר בשבת אבל לא פותחין ואין נותנין את המוכין לא לתוך הכר ולא לתוך הכסת ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת

The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥisda permitted returning stuffing to the pillow from which it had fallen on Shabbat. Rav Ḥanan bar Ḥisda raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda from a baraita: One may untie the neck opening of a shirt on Shabbat if it had been tied by the launderer; however, one may not open a new neck opening for the first time on Shabbat. And one may not place soft material into a pillow or into a cushion on a Festival, and, needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. This baraita contradicts the ruling issued by Rav Ḥisda.

לא קשיא הא בחדתי הא בעתיקי

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, the baraita is referring to new pillows, whereas that, the statement of Rav Ḥisda is referring to old pillows. Stuffing a pillow for the first time on Shabbat is prohibited because by so doing one fashions a new utensil. However, if the stuffing fell out of the pillow, refilling the pillow is permitted even on Shabbat.

תניא נמי הכי אין נותנין את המוכין לא לתוך הכר ולא לתוך הכסת ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת נשרו מחזירין אותן בשבת ואין צריך לומר ביום טוב

The Gemara notes: That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One may not place soft material as stuffing into a pillow or into a cushion on a Festival, and needless to say one may not do so on Shabbat. However, if the stuffing fell out, it may be replaced even on Shabbat, and needless to say that doing so is permitted on a Festival.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הפותח בית הצואר בשבת חייב חטאת

Having raised the issue of opening a collar, the Gemara cites that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who opens a new neck opening in a shirt on Shabbat, by cutting through the fabric and threads that kept it closed, is liable to bring a sin-offering. By creating the opening, he renders the shirt fit to wear, thereby fashioning a utensil on Shabbat.

מתקיף לה רב כהנא

Rav Kahana strongly objects to this:

מה בין זו למגופת חבית אמר ליה רבא זה חיבור וזה אינו חיבור

What is the difference between this and the stopper of a wine barrel, which the Sages permitted piercing on Shabbat in order to serve wine to guests? There, too, by piercing the stopper, he fashions a utensil. Rava said to him: The cases are not comparable: In this case, the neck opening of a shirt, it is considered a connection, i.e., it is an organic part of the weave of the fabric; whereas in that case, the stopper of the barrel, it is not considered a connection. Even though the stopper is sealed in place in the barrel, it is a separate entity. When the stopper is pierced, no new vessel is fashioned.

רמי ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא תנן שלל של כובסין ושלשלת של מפתחות והבגד שהוא תפור בכלאים חיבור לטומאה עד שיתחיל להתיר אלמא שלא בשעת מלאכה נמי חיבור

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a contradiction before Rabbi Zeira. We learned in a mishna: The basting of launderers, garments that a launderer sewed together with loose, temporary stitches to avoid losing them; and a ring of keys; and a garment that was sewn with a thread of diverse kinds, e.g., a woolen garment that was stitched with linen thread, which must be pulled out; even though they are attached only temporarily, as they will all eventually be separated, it is considered a connection with regard to issues of ritual impurity. If a source of ritual impurity comes into contact with one of the garments, they all become ritually impure, until one actually begins to untie them, thereby indicating that he does not want them attached. Apparently, even when these items are not in use, e.g., after the launderer finished laundering the clothes, it is also considered a connection.

ורמינהו מקל שעשה יד לקורדום חיבור לטומאה בשעת מלאכה בשעת מלאכה אין שלא בשעת מלאכה לא

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna: With regard to a stick that one made into an axe handle, it is considered a connection between the stick and the axe with regard to issues of ritual impurity when in use. If the axe comes into contact with a source of ritual impurity, the stick also becomes ritually impure, and vice versa. By inference: Only when the axe is actually in use, yes, it is considered a connection; when the axe is not in use, no, it is not considered a connection.

אמר ליה התם שלא בשעת מלאכה אדם עשוי לזורקו לבין העצים הכא שלא בשעת מלאכה נמי ניחא ליה דאי מיטנפו הדר מחוור להו

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: There, in the case of the axe, when not in use, a person is likely to throw the stick into the wood pile, as he is not particular about keeping them together. Therefore, it is not considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity. Here, with regard to the items listed in the first mishna, even when not in use, he prefers that they remain attached. In that way, if they get dirty, he can launder them again, as it is easier to wash one connected unit than several smaller swatches of fabric. Therefore, it is considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity.

בסורא מתנו לה להא שמעתא משמיה דרב חסדא בפומבדיתא מתנו משמיה דרב כהנא ואמרי לה משמיה דרבא מאן תנא הא מלתא דאמור רבנן כל המחובר לו הרי הוא כמוהו

In Sura, they taught this following halakha in the name of Rav Ḥisda; in Pumbedita, they taught it in the name of Rav Kahana, and some say, it was taught in the name of Rava: Who is the tanna who taught this matter stated by the Sages: The status of anything connected to an object is like that of the object with regard to ritual impurity?

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב רבי מאיר היא דתנן בית הפך ובית התבלין ובית הנר שבכירה מטמאין במגע ואין מטמאין באויר דברי רבי מאיר ורבי שמעון מטהר

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The tanna in question is Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna: The receptacle for the cruse of oil, and the receptacle for the spices, and the receptacle for the lamp that are in the stove become ritually impure through contact, i.e., if the wall of the stove becomes ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal, the receptacles also become ritually impure. However, these receptacles do not become ritually impure through air space, i.e., if the creeping animal were inside the stove but did not come into contact with its walls, the stove itself becomes ritually impure, but the receptacles do not; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems the receptacles ritually pure, even if the creeping animal came into actual contact with the stove.

בשלמא לרבי שמעון קסבר לאו ככירה דמו אלא לרבי מאיר אי ככירה דמו אפילו באויר נמי ליטמו אי לאו ככירה דמו אפילו במגע נמי לא ליטמו

The Gemara analyzes this dispute: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; he holds that these receptacles are not considered like the stove itself, and therefore they do not become ritually impure when the stove becomes ritually impure. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is difficult. If he holds that they are considered like the stove itself, then even if the creeping animal was in the stove’s air space, the receptacles should also become ritually impure. If he holds that they are not considered like the stove itself, then even if the creeping animal came into contact with the stove, the receptacles should also not become ritually impure.

לעולם לאו ככירה דמו ורבנן הוא דגזרו בהו אי גזרו בהו אפילו באויר נמי ליטמו

The Gemara answers: Actually, by Torah law, the receptacles are not considered like the stove itself, and the Sages are the ones who issued a decree that they become ritually impure due to their proximity to the stove. The Gemara asks: If the Sages issued a decree that they become ritually impure, then even in the case where the creeping animal does not come into contact with the walls of the oven, but is merely in its air space, the receptacles should also become ritually impure.

עבדו בהו רבנן היכרא כי היכי דלא אתי למשרף עליה תרומה וקדשים

The Gemara answers: The Sages made a conspicuous distinction, so that one will not come to burn his teruma and other consecrated items because of it. There is a severe prohibition to destroy teruma or consecrated items. If teruma becomes ritually impure, there is an obligation by Torah law to burn it; however, teruma that is ritually impure only by rabbinic decree is still fit by Torah law and may not be destroyed. Since there is concern that people will come to burn teruma even when doing so is prohibited, the Sages made a distinction, imposing ritual impurity on the receptacles only if the source of impurity came into physical contact with the walls of the stove, and not if it merely entered the stove’s airspace. In that way, it is clear that the ritual impurity is by rabbinic decree, and one will not come to burn teruma and consecrated objects due to that impurity.

תנו רבנן מספורת של פרקים ואיזמל של רהיטני חיבור לטומאה ואין חיבור להזאה

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to scissors made of component parts that are made to come apart and the blade of a carpenter’s plane, which can be removed from its handle, it is considered a connection between the components with regard to contracting ritual impurity. If one part becomes ritually impure, the other part becomes ritually impure as well. However, it is not considered a connection with regard to the sprinkling of the water of a purification offering. When water of purification is sprinkled on these implements in order to purify them from ritual impurity contracted through contact with a corpse (see Numbers 19:17–19), the water must be sprinkled on each part individually.

מה נפשך אי חיבור הוא אפילו להזאה נמי אי לאו חיבור הוא אפילו לטומאה נמי לא אמר רבא דבר תורה בשעת מלאכה חיבור בין לטומאה בין להזאה ושלא בשעת מלאכה אינו חיבור לא לטומאה ולא להזאה

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty: If it is considered a connection, it should be so considered even with regard to sprinkling; and if it is not considered a connection, it should not be so considered even with regard to ritual impurity. Rava said: By Torah law, when in use, it is considered a connection, both with regard to ritual impurity and with regard to sprinkling. And when not in use, even if the parts are now together, since they are made to eventually come apart and are typically dismantled, it is neither considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity nor with regard to sprinkling.

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

daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time: Shabbat 47-54

We will review Daf 47-54 and talk about insulating food on Shabbat, the power of wearing Tefilin, and can animals...
Weaving Wisdom

Rabbis, Archaeologist and Linguists

In the Daf Yomi, we see many interesting discussions about ancient vessels and other types of furnishings and tools.  An...
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 48: Keeping the Soup Hot Friday Night

The new perek! Insulating food on Shabbat, without cooking it. What substances protect the heat without increasing it and cooking....

Shabbat 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 48

אסוקי הבלא דזיתים מסקי הבלא דשומשמין לא מסקי הבלא

causing heat to rise, i.e., heating food that is not actually insulated in it, but merely resting upon it, the residue of olives causes heat to rise. Therefore, it is prohibited even to place cooked food upon it. However, the residue of sesame does not cause heat to rise to that extent. Therefore, it is permitted to place food upon it.

רבה ורבי זירא איקלעו לבי ריש גלותא חזיוה לההוא עבדא דאנח כוזא דמיא אפומא דקומקומא נזהיה רבה אמר ליה רבי זירא מאי שנא ממיחם על גבי מיחם אמר ליה התם אוקומי קא מוקים הכא אולודי קא מוליד

The Gemara relates an anecdote somewhat relevant to the previous discussion: Rabba and Rabbi Zeira happened to come to the house of the Exilarch on Shabbat, and saw this servant who placed a jug [kuza] of cold water on the mouth of a kettle filled with hot water. Rabba rebuked him for having acted contrary to the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabba: How is this case different from placing an urn on top of another urn, which is permitted on Shabbat? Rabba said to him: There, when he places one urn on top of another urn, he merely preserves the heat in the upper urn; therefore, it is permitted. Here, in the case where he places the jug of cold water on the mouth of a kettle, he is generating heat in the water in the upper vessel; therefore, it is prohibited.

הדר חזייה דפרס דסתודר אפומיה דכובא ואנח נטלא עילויה נזהיה רבה אמר ליה רבי זירא אמאי אמר ליה השתא חזית לסוף חזייה דקא מעצר ליה אמר ליה מאי שנא מפרונקא אמר ליה התם לא קפיד עילויה הכא קפיד עילויה:

The Gemara continues: Rabba then saw that same servant spread a kerchief [dastodar] over a vat of water and place a cup used to draw water from the vat, on the kerchief. Once again, Rabba rebuked him for having acted improperly. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Why did you rebuke him? Rabba said to him: Now, see what will happen. Ultimately, he saw that the servant was squeezing out the water that was absorbed by the kerchief, thereby violating a Torah prohibition. Nevertheless, Rabbi Zeira said to him: How is this case different from that of a cloth [parvanka], which one is permitted to spread over a vat even on Shabbat? Rabba said to him: There is a distinction between the two cases: There, in the case of the cloth, he is not particular about it; even if it gets wet, he will not come to squeeze it dry. Here, with regard to the kerchief, he is particular about it, and he will wring it so that it will not remain wet.

ולא בתבן: בעא מיניה רב אדא בר מתנה מאביי מוכין שטמן בהן מהו לטלטלן בשבת

We learned in the mishna: And one may neither insulate a pot in straw, nor in the residue of grapes that were pressed for their juice, nor in soft material. Rav Adda bar Mattana raised a dilemma before Abaye: With regard to swatches of soft material in which he insulated a pot, what is the halakha with regard to moving that material on Shabbat? Ordinarily, swatches of materials of that kind are set-aside because they have no use. Therefore, moving them on Shabbat is prohibited. Do we say that since they are now being used to insulate a pot, they assume the legal status of a utensil, which may be moved on Shabbat?

אמר ליה וכי מפני שאין לו קופה של תבן עומד ומפקיר קופה של מוכין

Abaye said to him: Just because he does not now have a basket of straw in which to insulate his food, does he stand up and renounce his basket of soft material? Obviously, he would have preferred to insulate his food in straw, as it is less expensive. The only reason that he used that material was because there was no straw available at the time. However, he does not want the swatches of material to be used for any other purpose, lest it be ruined. Therefore, it remains set-aside.

לימא מסייע ליה טומנין בגיזי צמר ובציפי צמר ובלשונות של ארגמן ובמוכין ואין מטלטלין אותן

The Gemara asks: Let us say that the following baraita supports him: One may insulate a pot of food on Friday afternoon in woolen fleece, in combed wool, in tabs of wool dyed purple, and in swatches of soft material; however, he may not move them. Apparently, this is in accordance with the opinion of Abaye.

אי משום הא לא איריא הכי קאמר אם לא טמן בהן אין מטלטלין אותן

The Gemara rejects this proof: If that is the reason, there is no conclusive argument, as it is saying in the baraita as follows: If, however, he did not insulate a pot in them, he may not move them on Shabbat. In that case, they remain earmarked for their own purpose and are therefore set-aside [muktze].

אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא חזי למזגא עלייהו קמשמע לן:

The Gemara questions this last assertion: If so, what is the reason to say that? Obviously, those materials are set-aside. The Gemara explains: Lest you say that all these materials are suitable for one to sit on them, and, consequently, their legal status is that of utensils, which may be moved. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not so, and they may not be moved due to the prohibition of set-aside.

רב חסדא שרא לאהדורי אודרא לבי סדיא בשבתא איתיביה רב חנן בר חסדא לרב חסדא מתירין בית הצואר בשבת אבל לא פותחין ואין נותנין את המוכין לא לתוך הכר ולא לתוך הכסת ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת

The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥisda permitted returning stuffing to the pillow from which it had fallen on Shabbat. Rav Ḥanan bar Ḥisda raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda from a baraita: One may untie the neck opening of a shirt on Shabbat if it had been tied by the launderer; however, one may not open a new neck opening for the first time on Shabbat. And one may not place soft material into a pillow or into a cushion on a Festival, and, needless to say, one may not do so on Shabbat. This baraita contradicts the ruling issued by Rav Ḥisda.

לא קשיא הא בחדתי הא בעתיקי

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This, the baraita is referring to new pillows, whereas that, the statement of Rav Ḥisda is referring to old pillows. Stuffing a pillow for the first time on Shabbat is prohibited because by so doing one fashions a new utensil. However, if the stuffing fell out of the pillow, refilling the pillow is permitted even on Shabbat.

תניא נמי הכי אין נותנין את המוכין לא לתוך הכר ולא לתוך הכסת ביום טוב ואין צריך לומר בשבת נשרו מחזירין אותן בשבת ואין צריך לומר ביום טוב

The Gemara notes: That opinion was also taught in a baraita: One may not place soft material as stuffing into a pillow or into a cushion on a Festival, and needless to say one may not do so on Shabbat. However, if the stuffing fell out, it may be replaced even on Shabbat, and needless to say that doing so is permitted on a Festival.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הפותח בית הצואר בשבת חייב חטאת

Having raised the issue of opening a collar, the Gemara cites that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who opens a new neck opening in a shirt on Shabbat, by cutting through the fabric and threads that kept it closed, is liable to bring a sin-offering. By creating the opening, he renders the shirt fit to wear, thereby fashioning a utensil on Shabbat.

מתקיף לה רב כהנא

Rav Kahana strongly objects to this:

מה בין זו למגופת חבית אמר ליה רבא זה חיבור וזה אינו חיבור

What is the difference between this and the stopper of a wine barrel, which the Sages permitted piercing on Shabbat in order to serve wine to guests? There, too, by piercing the stopper, he fashions a utensil. Rava said to him: The cases are not comparable: In this case, the neck opening of a shirt, it is considered a connection, i.e., it is an organic part of the weave of the fabric; whereas in that case, the stopper of the barrel, it is not considered a connection. Even though the stopper is sealed in place in the barrel, it is a separate entity. When the stopper is pierced, no new vessel is fashioned.

רמי ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא תנן שלל של כובסין ושלשלת של מפתחות והבגד שהוא תפור בכלאים חיבור לטומאה עד שיתחיל להתיר אלמא שלא בשעת מלאכה נמי חיבור

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a contradiction before Rabbi Zeira. We learned in a mishna: The basting of launderers, garments that a launderer sewed together with loose, temporary stitches to avoid losing them; and a ring of keys; and a garment that was sewn with a thread of diverse kinds, e.g., a woolen garment that was stitched with linen thread, which must be pulled out; even though they are attached only temporarily, as they will all eventually be separated, it is considered a connection with regard to issues of ritual impurity. If a source of ritual impurity comes into contact with one of the garments, they all become ritually impure, until one actually begins to untie them, thereby indicating that he does not want them attached. Apparently, even when these items are not in use, e.g., after the launderer finished laundering the clothes, it is also considered a connection.

ורמינהו מקל שעשה יד לקורדום חיבור לטומאה בשעת מלאכה בשעת מלאכה אין שלא בשעת מלאכה לא

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna: With regard to a stick that one made into an axe handle, it is considered a connection between the stick and the axe with regard to issues of ritual impurity when in use. If the axe comes into contact with a source of ritual impurity, the stick also becomes ritually impure, and vice versa. By inference: Only when the axe is actually in use, yes, it is considered a connection; when the axe is not in use, no, it is not considered a connection.

אמר ליה התם שלא בשעת מלאכה אדם עשוי לזורקו לבין העצים הכא שלא בשעת מלאכה נמי ניחא ליה דאי מיטנפו הדר מחוור להו

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: There, in the case of the axe, when not in use, a person is likely to throw the stick into the wood pile, as he is not particular about keeping them together. Therefore, it is not considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity. Here, with regard to the items listed in the first mishna, even when not in use, he prefers that they remain attached. In that way, if they get dirty, he can launder them again, as it is easier to wash one connected unit than several smaller swatches of fabric. Therefore, it is considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity.

בסורא מתנו לה להא שמעתא משמיה דרב חסדא בפומבדיתא מתנו משמיה דרב כהנא ואמרי לה משמיה דרבא מאן תנא הא מלתא דאמור רבנן כל המחובר לו הרי הוא כמוהו

In Sura, they taught this following halakha in the name of Rav Ḥisda; in Pumbedita, they taught it in the name of Rav Kahana, and some say, it was taught in the name of Rava: Who is the tanna who taught this matter stated by the Sages: The status of anything connected to an object is like that of the object with regard to ritual impurity?

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב רבי מאיר היא דתנן בית הפך ובית התבלין ובית הנר שבכירה מטמאין במגע ואין מטמאין באויר דברי רבי מאיר ורבי שמעון מטהר

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The tanna in question is Rabbi Meir, as we learned in a mishna: The receptacle for the cruse of oil, and the receptacle for the spices, and the receptacle for the lamp that are in the stove become ritually impure through contact, i.e., if the wall of the stove becomes ritually impure through contact with a creeping animal, the receptacles also become ritually impure. However, these receptacles do not become ritually impure through air space, i.e., if the creeping animal were inside the stove but did not come into contact with its walls, the stove itself becomes ritually impure, but the receptacles do not; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon deems the receptacles ritually pure, even if the creeping animal came into actual contact with the stove.

בשלמא לרבי שמעון קסבר לאו ככירה דמו אלא לרבי מאיר אי ככירה דמו אפילו באויר נמי ליטמו אי לאו ככירה דמו אפילו במגע נמי לא ליטמו

The Gemara analyzes this dispute: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; he holds that these receptacles are not considered like the stove itself, and therefore they do not become ritually impure when the stove becomes ritually impure. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is difficult. If he holds that they are considered like the stove itself, then even if the creeping animal was in the stove’s air space, the receptacles should also become ritually impure. If he holds that they are not considered like the stove itself, then even if the creeping animal came into contact with the stove, the receptacles should also not become ritually impure.

לעולם לאו ככירה דמו ורבנן הוא דגזרו בהו אי גזרו בהו אפילו באויר נמי ליטמו

The Gemara answers: Actually, by Torah law, the receptacles are not considered like the stove itself, and the Sages are the ones who issued a decree that they become ritually impure due to their proximity to the stove. The Gemara asks: If the Sages issued a decree that they become ritually impure, then even in the case where the creeping animal does not come into contact with the walls of the oven, but is merely in its air space, the receptacles should also become ritually impure.

עבדו בהו רבנן היכרא כי היכי דלא אתי למשרף עליה תרומה וקדשים

The Gemara answers: The Sages made a conspicuous distinction, so that one will not come to burn his teruma and other consecrated items because of it. There is a severe prohibition to destroy teruma or consecrated items. If teruma becomes ritually impure, there is an obligation by Torah law to burn it; however, teruma that is ritually impure only by rabbinic decree is still fit by Torah law and may not be destroyed. Since there is concern that people will come to burn teruma even when doing so is prohibited, the Sages made a distinction, imposing ritual impurity on the receptacles only if the source of impurity came into physical contact with the walls of the stove, and not if it merely entered the stove’s airspace. In that way, it is clear that the ritual impurity is by rabbinic decree, and one will not come to burn teruma and consecrated objects due to that impurity.

תנו רבנן מספורת של פרקים ואיזמל של רהיטני חיבור לטומאה ואין חיבור להזאה

The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to scissors made of component parts that are made to come apart and the blade of a carpenter’s plane, which can be removed from its handle, it is considered a connection between the components with regard to contracting ritual impurity. If one part becomes ritually impure, the other part becomes ritually impure as well. However, it is not considered a connection with regard to the sprinkling of the water of a purification offering. When water of purification is sprinkled on these implements in order to purify them from ritual impurity contracted through contact with a corpse (see Numbers 19:17–19), the water must be sprinkled on each part individually.

מה נפשך אי חיבור הוא אפילו להזאה נמי אי לאו חיבור הוא אפילו לטומאה נמי לא אמר רבא דבר תורה בשעת מלאכה חיבור בין לטומאה בין להזאה ושלא בשעת מלאכה אינו חיבור לא לטומאה ולא להזאה

The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty: If it is considered a connection, it should be so considered even with regard to sprinkling; and if it is not considered a connection, it should not be so considered even with regard to ritual impurity. Rava said: By Torah law, when in use, it is considered a connection, both with regard to ritual impurity and with regard to sprinkling. And when not in use, even if the parts are now together, since they are made to eventually come apart and are typically dismantled, it is neither considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity nor with regard to sprinkling.

More Ways to Learn with Hadran

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

Scroll To Top