הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא דְּתַנְיָא חוֹתָמוֹת שֶׁבַּקַּרְקַע מַתִּיר אֲבָל לֹא מַפְקִיעַ וְלֹא חוֹתֵךְ אֶחָד שַׁבָּת וְאֶחָד יוֹם טוֹב וְשֶׁבַּכְּלִי בְּשַׁבָּת מַתִּיר אֲבָל לֹא מַפְקִיעַ וְלֹא חוֹתֵךְ בְּיוֹם טוֹב מַתִּיר וּמַפְקִיעַ וְחוֹתֵךְ The Gemara responds: It was he, Shmuel, who spoke in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to fastenings that are to the ground, e.g., those on doors, one may untie them but not unravel or cut them, both on Shabbat and on a Festival. And with regard to those fastenings of a vessel, on Shabbat one may untie them, but one may not unravel or cut them; on a Festival one may untie, or unravel, or cut them.
תָּרֵצְתְּ לָךְ רֵישָׁא אֶלָּא סֵיפָא קַשְׁיָא The Gemara challenges further: You have thereby answered the first clause of Shmuel’s statement, with regard to fastenings attached to the ground, e.g., those on doors, by finding a tanna who permits untying them, as does Shmuel. However, the latter clause is difficult because the baraita states that one may not unravel even ropes of vessels on Shabbat, whereas Shmuel permits unraveling in all cases.
הָא מַנִּי רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הִיא דְּאָמַר כׇּל הַכֵּלִים אֵין נִיטָּלִין אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ תַּשְׁמִישָׁן The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, whose opinion is a minority view, as he said: All vessels may be handled only in the manner of their designated use. Therefore, the rope may not be cut, not because it is prohibited to unravel it but because one may not handle a knife for this purpose, as the designated use of the knife is cutting food rather than rope.
אִי רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מַאי אִירְיָא שַׁבָּת אֲפִילּוּ יוֹם טוֹב נָמֵי וְכִי תֵּימָא שַׁנְיָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה בֵּין שְׁבוּת שַׁבָּת לִשְׁבוּת יוֹם טוֹב וּמִי שַׁנְיָא לֵיהּ The Gemara challenges: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, why discuss particularly Shabbat? The same halakha should apply even on a Festival, as there is no distinction between Shabbat and Festivals with regard to the halakhot of handling items. And if you say that there is a distinction according to Rabbi Neḥemya between a rabbinic decree of Shabbat, when a vessel may be moved only for its designated purpose, and a rabbinic decree of a Festival, when it may not be moved for any purpose, there is a problem. Does he differentiate between them in this manner?
וְהָתָנֵי חֲדָא מַסִּיקִין בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין מַסִּיקִין בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ מַסִּיקִין בֵּין בְּכֵלִים בֵּין בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵּלִים וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ אֵין מַסִּיקִין לֹא בְּכֵלִים וְלֹא בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים But isn’t it taught in one baraita: On a Festival one may kindle fire with vessels, but one may not kindle fire with shards of vessels, as they are muktze? And it is taught in another baraita: One may kindle fire both with vessels and with shards of vessels. And it is taught in yet another baraita: One may kindle fire neither with vessels nor with shards of vessels.
וּמְשַׁנֵּי לָא קַשְׁיָא הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה And this contradiction between the baraitot is resolved in the following manner: It is not difficult; this first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who accepts the law of muktze. One may therefore kindle fire with vessels, as they are not muktze, but not with shards of vessels, as they are muktze and may not be handled. This second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who does not accept the law of muktze. According to him, one may use shards of vessels as well. This one that prohibits using even vessels that are intact is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, who allows vessels to be used only for their designated purpose. This indicates that Rabbi Neḥemya prohibits handling even whole vessels on Festivals as well.
תְּרֵי תַנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: The Gemara replies: These are two tanna’im who both hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya. Two later tanna’im disagreed with each other in reporting the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya. Both agree that one may use vessels only for their designated purpose, but they disagree with regard to whether this halakha applies only on Shabbat or on Festivals as well.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין אֶת הַנֵּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה כֶּלִי וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין פֶּחָמִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב וְאֵין חוֹתְכִין אֶת הַפְּתִילָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר חוֹתְכָהּ בָּאוּר: MISHNA: On a Festival, one may not hollow out a piece of clay to form a lamp into which he will place oil and a wick because he thereby creates a vessel. And similarly, one may not produce charcoal at all on a Festival because this is not labor for sustenance. And similarly, one may not cut the wick, as this is considered mending a vessel. Rabbi Yehuda says: If one requires a wick of a particular length, he may cut it by burning it in a fire but not by cutting it with a knife.
גְּמָ׳ מַאן תְּנָא דִּפְחִיתַת נֵר מָנָא הוּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא דְּתַנְיָא כְּלִי חֶרֶס מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה מִשֶּׁנִּגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתּוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר מִשֶּׁיִּצְרְפוֹ בַּכִּבְשָׁן GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that hollowing out a lamp is considered creating a vessel, even if it is not fired in a furnace? Rav Yosef said: It is Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity: From when is an earthenware vessel susceptible to ritual impurity? It is from when its work is completed, i.e., when the clay has been made into the form of a vessel; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is from when the vessel is fired in the furnace.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי מִמַּאי דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם אֶלָּא דַּחֲזֵי לְקַבּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ מִידֵּי אֲבָל הָכָא לְמַאי חֲזִי לְקַבּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ פְּשִׁיטֵי Abaye said to him: From where do you conclude that this is the same opinion? Perhaps Rabbi Meir stated his opinion only there, with regard to vessels, since they are fit to contain something. Although they cannot hold liquids before being fired in a furnace, they can contain other items. But here, for what use is this lamp fit? The Gemara responds: It can be used to contain small coins.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק הִיא דִּתְנַן אִלְפָּסִין חִרָנִיּוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת בְּאֹהֶל הַמֵּת וּטְמֵאוֹת בְּמַשָּׂא הַזָּב Some say the following version of the discussion: Rav Yosef said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, as we learned: Ḥaraniyyot pots [ilpasin] are unfinished earthenware pots made together with their covers. The covers are removed after they are fired in a furnace. They are pure with regard to contracting the impurity of a tent over a corpse, as they do not have a receptacle. Earthenware vessels can contract impurity imparted by a corpse only if they have a hollow space that can contain something. But ḥaraniyyot pots are rendered impure by the carrying of a zav, even if the zav moved them without actually touching them, as this impurity applies to any earthenware vessels that serve some purpose.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר אַף טְהוֹרוֹת בְּמַשָּׂא הַזָּב לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּן Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: These vessels are even pure with regard to the impurity imparted by the carrying of a zav because their labor is not completed; therefore, they are not fully formed. This implies that when the pots are completed, they are considered full-fledged vessels, even before they have been fired in a furnace.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי דִּלְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק הָתָם אֶלָּא דַּחֲזֵי לְקַבּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ מִידֵּי אֲבָל הָכָא לְמַאי חָזֵי לְקַבּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ פְּשִׁיטֵי Abaye said to him: Perhaps it is not so, as it is possible to say that Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, stated his opinion only there, in the case of ḥaraniyyot pots, since they are fit to contain something. But here, in the case of a lamp, for what is it fit? The Gemara replies: It is fit to contain small coins.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין אֶת הַנֵּר וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין אִלְפָּסִין חִרָנִיּוֹת בְּיוֹם טוֹב רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַתִּיר בְּאִלְפָּסִין חִרָנִיּוֹת מַאי חִרָנִיּוֹת אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה עִרָנִיּוֹת מַאי עִרָנִיּוֹת אָמַר אַבָּיֵי צָעֵי חַקְלָיָיתָא The Sages taught: One may not hollow out a lamp, and one may not create ḥaraniyyot pots on a Festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits creating ḥaraniyyot pots. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of ḥaraniyyot? Rav Yehuda said: They are pots of a city [iraniyyot]. The Gemara again inquires: What is the meaning of iraniyyot? Abaye said: It means villagers’ bowls who will use even clay vessels that have not been fully formed or fired, as they are not particular with regard to half-finished utensils.
וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין פֶּחָמִין פְּשִׁיטָא לְמַאי חָזֵי תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְמוֹסְרָן לְאוֹלְיָירִין לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם It is taught in the mishna: And one may not produce charcoal on a Festival. The Gemara challenges: It is obvious that one may perform only labor for sustenance. For what is charcoal fit; what purpose does it have for the sake of sustenance? Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: It is necessary to teach this halakha only in the case of handing the charcoal over to bathhouse attendants [olyarin] who heat up the bathhouse for that day. One might have thought that since charcoal is used for the sake of washing on a Festival, producing it should be permitted.
וּבוֹ בַּיּוֹם מִי שְׁרֵי כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא לְהַזִּיעַ וְקוֹדֶם גְּזֵרָה הָכָא נָמֵי לְהַזִּיעַ וְקוֹדֶם גְּזֵרָה: The Gemara questions this: And on that day is it permitted to heat up water for washing? The Sages decreed that one may not wash in a bathhouse on a Festival, even if the water was heated up the day before, and certainly it is prohibited if the water was heated on the Festival itself. The Gemara replies: As Rava said with regard to a different issue, this decree does not refer to actual washing but to entering a bathhouse merely in order to sweat, and it was stated before the enactment of the decree against sweating in a bathhouse. Here, too, one can explain that the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya is referring to a case where one entered to sweat, and he entered at a time before the decree was enacted.
וְאֵין חוֹתְכִין אֶת הַפְּתִילָה לִשְׁנַיִם מַאי שְׁנָא בְּסַכִּין דְּלָא It was taught in the mishna: And one may not cut a wick into two, but Rabbi Yehuda permits cutting it by means of fire. The Gemara asks: What is different about cutting a wick with fire as opposed to with a knife, that one may not cut a wick with a knife?