וְגָזְרוּ רַבָּנַן עַל טוּמְאָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה, וְעַל הַזָּאָה שֶׁבִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה מִשּׁוּם הַזָּאָה שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת מְלָאכָה. And the Sages issued a decree that it should be considered a connection with regard to ritual impurity even when not in use, due to ritual impurity when in use. If one component becomes ritually impure, the other component becomes ritually impure as well. And, as a further stringency, they issued a decree that it is not considered a connection with regard to sprinkling even when in use, due to sprinkling when not in use. The water of purification must be sprinkled on each part individually.
בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן לַחִין. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: לַחִין מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן, אוֹ דִילְמָא לַחִין מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר. The mishna listed several materials in which food may not be insulated on Shabbat eve when those materials are moist. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the mishna referring specifically to materials that are moist due to their own natural state, or is it referring perhaps even to materials that are now moist due to something else, e.g., because they were soaked by liquid?
תָּא שְׁמַע: לֹא בַּתֶּבֶן וְלֹא בַּזַּגִּים וְלֹא בַּמּוֹכִין וְלֹא בָּעֲשָׂבִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן לַחִין. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לַחִין מֵחֲמַת דָּבָר אַחֵר — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לַחִין מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן, מוֹכִין לַחִין מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? — מִמִּרְטָא דְּבֵינֵי אַטְמֵי. Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the materials listed in the mishna: And one may neither insulate a pot in straw, nor in the residue of grapes that have been pressed for their juice, nor in soft materials, nor in grass, when these materials are moist. Granted, if you say that the mishna is referring to materials that are moist due to something else, this can be well understood, as all of these materials can get wet. However, if you say that it is referring to materials that are moist due to their own natural state, where do you find soft materials that are moist due to their own natural state? Wool is dry in its natural state. The Gemara rejects this argument: The mishna is referring to a case where the material is made from wool plucked from between the thighs of the animal, as that wool is usually damp from sweat.
וְהָא דְתָנֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: טוֹמְנִין בִּכְסוּת יְבֵשָׁה וּבְפֵירוֹת יְבֵשִׁין, אֲבָל לֹא בִּכְסוּת לַחָה וְלֹא בְּפֵירוֹת לַחִין. כְּסוּת לַחָה מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָהּ הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? — מִמִּרְטָא דְּבֵינֵי אַטְמֵי. The Gemara continues with a similar question: And that which Rabbi Oshaya taught in a baraita: One may insulate a pot of hot food on Shabbat eve in a dry garment and in dry produce, but not in a moist garment or in moist produce. Where do you find a ruling pertaining to a cloth that is moist due to its own natural state? The Gemara answers: Here too, the baraita is referring to a case where the cloth was made from wool plucked from between the thighs of the animal. The wool was spun and the cloth was woven while the wool was still moist. Consequently, there is no conclusive proof whether the materials listed in the mishna are prohibited only when naturally moist or even if they are moist due to another source.
מַתְנִי׳ טוֹמְנִין בִּכְסוּת וּבְפֵירוֹת, בְּכַנְפֵי יוֹנָה וּבִנְסוֹרֶת שֶׁל חָרָשִׁים וּבִנְעוֹרֶת שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן דַּקָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹסֵר בַּדַּקָּה וּמַתִּיר בַּגַּסָּה. MISHNA: One may insulate a pot of hot food on Shabbat eve in clothing, in produce, in doves’ wings, in a carpenter’s wood-shavings, and in the chaff of fine flax. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits doing so when it is fine, and permits doing so when it is coarse.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: תְּפִילִּין צְרִיכִין גּוּף נָקִי כֶּאֱלִישָׁע ״בַּעַל כְּנָפַיִם״. מַאי הִיא? אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: שֶׁלֹּא יָפִיחַ בָּהֶן. רָבָא אָמַר: שֶׁלֹּא יִישַׁן בָּהֶן. GEMARA: Since doves’ wings were mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara cites a related story: Rabbi Yannai said: Donning phylacteries requires a clean body, like that of Elisha, Man of Wings. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the statement that donning phylacteries requires a clean body? Abaye said: It means that one may not break wind while donning them. Rava said: It means that one may not sleep in them.
וְאַמַּאי קָרֵי לֵיהּ ״בַּעַל כְּנָפַיִם״? — שֶׁפַּעַם אַחַת גָּזְרָה מַלְכוּת רוֹמִי הָרְשָׁעָה שְׁמָד עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁכָּל הַמַּנִּיחַ תְּפִילִּין יְנַקְּרוּ אֶת מוֹחוֹ, וְהָיָה אֱלִישָׁע מַנִּיחָם וְיוֹצֵא לַשּׁוּק. רָאָהוּ קַסְדּוֹר אֶחָד רָץ מִפָּנָיו וְרָץ אַחֲרָיו. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֶצְלוֹ נְטָלָן מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וַאֲחָזָן בְּיָדוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: מַה זֶּה בְּיָדְךָ? אָמַר לוֹ: כַּנְפֵי יוֹנָה. פָּשַׁט אֶת יָדוֹ וְנִמְצְאוּ כַּנְפֵי יוֹנָה. לְפִיכָךְ קוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ ״אֱלִישָׁע בַּעַל כְּנָפַיִם״. The Gemara asks: And why did they call Elisha Man of Wings? Because on one occasion the evil kingdom of Rome issued a decree against Israel that, as punishment, they would pierce the brain of anyone who dons phylacteries. Nevertheless, Elisha would don them and defiantly go out to the marketplace. One day, an official [kasdor] who was appointed to enforce the decree saw him; Elisha ran away from him, and the official ran after him. When the official reached him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his head and held them in his hand. The officer asked him: What is that in your hand? Elisha said to him: It is merely a dove’s wings. A miracle was performed: He opened his hand, and, indeed, it was found to be a dove’s wings. Therefore, in commemoration of this miracle, they would call him Elisha, Man of Wings.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא כַּנְפֵי יוֹנָה מִשְּׁאָר עוֹפוֹת? מִשּׁוּם דְּאִמְּתִיל כְּנֶסֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְיוֹנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כַּנְפֵי יוֹנָה נֶחְפָּה בַכֶּסֶף וְגוֹ׳״ — מַה יּוֹנָה כְּנָפֶיהָ מְגִינּוֹת עָלֶיהָ, אַף יִשְׂרָאֵל מִצְוֹת מְגִינּוֹת עֲלֵיהֶן. The Gemara asks: And what is different about doves’ wings from those of other birds that led Elisha to say that he had doves’ wings in his hand? The Gemara answers: Because the congregation of Israel is likened to a dove, as it is stated: “You shall shine as the wings of a dove covered with silver and her pinions with yellow gold” (Psalms 68:14). Just as this dove, only its wings protect it and it has no other means of protection, so too the Jewish people, only mitzvot protect them.
בִּנְסוֹרֶת שֶׁל חָרָשִׁין כּוּ׳. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַנְּסוֹרֶת שֶׁל חָרָשִׁין קָאֵי, אוֹ אַנְּעוֹרֶת שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן קָאֵי? We learned in the mishna: One may insulate food on Shabbat eve in a carpenter’s wood-shavings, and in the chaff of fine flax. Rabbi Yehuda prohibits doing so when it is fine, and permits doing so when it is coarse. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda referring to the carpenter’s wood-shavings, or is it referring to the chaff of flax?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נְעוֹרֶת שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן דַּקָּה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּזֶבֶל. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אַנְּעוֹרֶת שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן קָאֵי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ. The Gemara answers: Come and hear proof as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: The legal status of the chaff of fine flax is like that of manure, i.e., it adds heat. The Gemara comments: Conclude from it that Rabbi Yehuda is referring to the chaff of flax. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it.
מַתְנִי׳ טוֹמְנִין בְּשִׁלְחִין וּמְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן, בְּגִיזֵּי צֶמֶר וְאֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן. כֵּיצַד הוּא עוֹשֶׂה? נוֹטֵל אֶת הַכִּסּוּי, וְהֵן נוֹפְלוֹת. MISHNA: One may insulate cooked food on Shabbat eve in animal hides and may move those hides on Shabbat. So too, one may insulate food in wool fleece and, in contrast to hides, one may not move the fleece. How, then, does one act if he insulated food in fleece, and now wishes to remove the pot? He lifts the cover, which he is permitted to move, and the fleece falls by itself. He need not even touch it.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: קוּפָּה, מַטָּהּ עַל צִדָּהּ וְנוֹטֵל, שֶׁמָּא יִטּוֹל וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נוֹטֵל וּמַחֲזִיר. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: If he placed the pot in a basket filled with fleece, he leans the basket on its side so that the fleece will fall to the side and takes the pot. Otherwise, there is concern lest the wool collapse when he lifts the pot from the basket. And then, he will be unable to replace the pot, as it is prohibited to move the wool to make room for the pot, since the wool is set-aside. And the Rabbis disagree and say: He may take the pot and afterward replace it.
גְּמָ׳ יָתֵיב רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עֲכִינַאי וְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, וְיָתֵיב רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר חָמָא גַּבַּיְיהוּ, וְקָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: שְׁלָחִין שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תְּנַן, אֲבָל שֶׁל אוּמָּן כֵּיוָן דְּקָפֵיד עֲלַיְיהוּ לָא מְטַלְטְלִינַן לְהוּ. אוֹ דִילְמָא שֶׁל אוּמָּן תְּנַן, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת? GEMARA: The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yonatan ben Akhinai and Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar sat, and Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama sat with them, and they raised the following dilemma: Did we learn the halakha in the mishna that only the hides of a common homeowner may be moved; however, the hides of a craftsman, whose profession is processing hides, since he is particular that they not be ruined because they are essential to his work, one may not move them on Shabbat? Or, perhaps, we learned the halakha in the mishna that even the hides of a craftsman may be moved, and all the more so that hides of a common homeowner may be moved.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר: מִסְתַּבְּרָא שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תְּנַן, אֲבָל שֶׁל אוּמָּן קָפֵיד עֲלַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר חָמָא, כָּךְ אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: Rabbi Yonatan ben Elazar said to them: It stands to reason that we learned the halakha in the mishna with regard to the hides of a common homeowner; however, hides of a craftsman may not be moved, since he is particular about them. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama said to them that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said as follows: