Shabbat 29aשבת כ״ט א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 29a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
29aכ״ט א

גּוֹי שֶׁחָקַק קַב בִּבְקַעַת — יִשְׂרָאֵל מַסִּיקָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְאַמַּאי? נוֹלָד הוּא! לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

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.

רָבָא אָמַר, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַדְלִיקִין בִּפְתִילָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְחוֹרֶכֶת וְלֹא בִּסְמַרְטוּטִין שֶׁאֵינָן מְחוֹרָכִין. אֶלָּא הָא דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף ״שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ מְצוּמְצָמוֹת״ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה. דִּתְנַן: שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁאָמְרוּ — חוּץ מִן הַמְּלָל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ מְכֻוּוֹנוֹת.

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.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַסִּיקִין בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין מַסִּיקִין בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. מַסִּיקִין בִּתְמָרִין, אֲכָלָן אֵין מַסִּיקִין בְּגַרְעִינֵיהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. מַסִּיקִין בֶּאֱגוֹזִים, אֲכָלָן אֵין מַסִּיקִין בִּקְלִיפּוֹתֵיהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר.

With regard to the statement cited above, Rav Yehuda said that Rav said that there is a dispute between the tannaim 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.

וּצְרִיכָא. דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא, בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא כְּלִי וְהַשְׁתָּא שֶׁבֶר כְּלִי, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ נוֹלַד, וְאָסוּר. אֲבָל תְּמָרִים, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא גַּרְעִינִין וְהַשְׁתָּא גַּרְעִינִין — אֵימָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּרְעִינִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא מִכַּסְּיָין וְהַשְׁתָּא מִיגַּלְּיָין. אֲבָל קְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹזִין, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא מִיגַּלּוּ וְהַשְׁתָּא מִיגַּלּוּ — אֵימָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. צְרִיכָא.

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.

וְהָא דְּרַב לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר. דְּרַב אֲכַל תַּמְרֵי וּשְׁדָא קַשְׁיָיתָא לְבוּכְיָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא: בַּר פַּחֲתֵי, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אָסוּר. קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ אוֹ לָא קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ?

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?

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב לְבָבֶל, אֲכַל תַּמְרֵי וּשְׁדָא קַשְׁיָיתָא לְחֵיוָתָא. מַאי לָאו בְּפַרְסָיָיאתָא, וְלָא קַבְּלַהּ? — לָא, בַּאֲרַמָּיָאתָא — הוֹאִיל וַחֲזֵי אַגַּב אִימַּיְיהוּ.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר בַּר חָנָה לְרַב יוֹסֵף: לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר מַסִּיקִין בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין מַסִּיקִין בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים, כֵּיוָן דְּאַדְלֵיק בְּהוּ פּוּרְתָּא הָוֵה לֵיהּ שִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים, וְכִי קָא מְהַפֵּךְ — בְּאִיסּוּרָא קָא מְהַפֵּךְ? — דַּעֲבַד כִּדְרַב מַתְנָה. דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָה אָמַר רַב: עֵצִים שֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ מִן הַדֶּקֶל לְתַנּוּר בְּיוֹם טוֹב, מַרְבֶּה עֵצִים מוּכָנִין וּמַסִּיקָן.

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.

רַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה עָסְקִינַן, מִקּוּלֵּי מַטְלָנִיּוֹת שָׁנוּ כָּאן.

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.

וְאָזְדָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְטַעְמֵיהּ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ. דִּתְנַן: פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהִתְקִינוּ לִפְקֹק בּוֹ אֶת הַמֶּרְחָץ וּלְנַעֵר בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּדֵירָה וּלְקַנֵּחַ בּוֹ אֶת הָרֵחַיִים — בֵּין מִן הַמּוּכָן וּבֵין שֶׁאֵין מִן הַמּוּכָן — טָמֵא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: בֵּין מִן הַמּוּכָן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּכָן — טָהוֹר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִן הַמּוּכָן — טָמֵא, וְשֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּכָן — טָהוֹר. וְאָמַר עוּלָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים זְרָקוֹ בָּאַשְׁפָּה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טָהוֹר.

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.