מָה בֵּין זוֹ לִמְגוּפַת חָבִית. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: זֶה חִיבּוּר, וְזֶה אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר.
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.
רָמֵי לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: תְּנַן: שְׁלָל שֶׁל כּוֹבְסִין, וְשַׁלְשֶׁלֶת שֶׁל מַפְתְּחוֹת, וְהַבֶּגֶד שֶׁהוּא תָּפוּר בְּכִלְאַיִם חִיבּוּר לַטּוּמְאָה — עַד שֶׁיַּתְחִיל לְהַתִּיר. אַלְמָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה נָמֵי חִיבּוּר.
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.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: מַקֵּל שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ יָד לְקוּרְדּוֹם — חִיבּוּר לַטּוּמְאָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה. בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה — אִין, שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה — לָא!
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה אָדָם עָשׂוּי לְזוֹרְקוֹ לְבֵין הָעֵצִים, הָכָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה נָמֵי נִיחָא לֵיהּ, דְּאִי מִיטַּנְּפוּ הָדַר מְחַוַּור לְהוּ.
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.
בְּסוּרָא מַתְנוּ לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מַתְנוּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: מַאן תְּנָא הָא מִלְּתָא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן כׇּל הַמְחוּבָּר לוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כָּמוֹהוּ?
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?
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא. דִּתְנַן: בֵּית הַפַּךְ וּבֵית הַתַּבְלִין וּבֵית הַנֵּר שֶׁבַּכִּירָה מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַגָּע וְאֵין מְטַמְּאִין בָּאֲוִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — קָסָבַר לָאו כְּכִירָה דָּמוּ. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אִי כְּכִירָה דָּמוּ — אֲפִילּוּ בַּאֲוִיר נָמֵי לִיטַּמּוּ. אִי לָאו כְּכִירָה דָּמוּ — אֲפִילּוּ בְּמַגָּע נָמֵי לָא לִיטַּמּוּ!
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.
לְעוֹלָם לָאו כְּכִירָה דָּמוּ וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזַרוּ בְּהוּ. אִי גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ, אֲפִילּוּ בָּאֲוִיר נָמֵי לִיטַּמּוּ!
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.
עֲבַדוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן הֶיכֵּרָא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא אָתֵי לְמִשְׂרַף עֲלֵיהּ תְּרוּמָה וְקׇדָשִׁים.
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.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַסְפּוֹרֶת שֶׁל פְּרָקִים וְאִיזְמֵל שֶׁל רָהִיטְנֵי חִיבּוּר לַטּוּמְאָה, וְאֵין חִיבּוּר לַהַזָּאָה.
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.
מָה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי חִיבּוּר הוּא — אֲפִילּוּ לְהַזָּאָה נָמֵי, אִי לָאו חִיבּוּר הוּא — אֲפִילּוּ לְטוּמְאָה נָמֵי לָא! אָמַר רָבָא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה חִיבּוּר — בֵּין לְטוּמְאָה בֵּין לְהַזָּאָה. וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה — אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר לֹא לְטוּמְאָה וְלֹא לְהַזָּאָה.
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.