Shabbat 48
אַסּוֹקֵי הַבְלָא — דְּזֵיתִים מַסְּקִי הַבְלָא, דְּשׁוּמְשְׁמִין לָא מַסְּקִי הַבְלָא.
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.
רַבָּה וְרַבִּי זֵירָא אִיקְּלַעוּ לְבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא. חַזְיוּהּ לְהָהוּא עַבְדָּא דְּאַנַּח כּוּזָא דְמַיָּא אַפּוּמָּא דְקוּמְקוּמָא. נַזְהֵיהּ רַבָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: מַאי שְׁנָא מִמֵּיחַם עַל גַּבֵּי מֵיחַם? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם אוֹקוֹמֵי קָא מוֹקֵים, הָכָא אוֹלוֹדֵי קָא מוֹלֵיד.
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.
הֲדַר חַזְיֵיהּ דִּפְרַס דַּסְתּוֹדַר אַפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּכוּבָּא וְאַנַּח נַטְלָא עִילָּוֵיהּ. נַזְהֵיהּ רַבָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: אַמַּאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַשְׁתָּא חָזֵית. לְסוֹף חַזְיֵיהּ דְּקָא מְעַצַּר לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי שְׁנָא מִפְּרוֹנְקָא? אָמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָא קָפֵיד עִילָּוֵיהּ, הָכָא קָפֵיד עִילָּוֵיהּ.
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.
וְלֹא בַּתֶּבֶן. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה מֵאַבָּיֵי: מוֹכִין שֶׁטָּמַן בָּהֶן, מַהוּ לְטַלְטְלָן בְּשַׁבָּת?
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?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קוּפָּה שֶׁל תֶּבֶן, עוֹמֵד וּמַפְקִיר קוּפָּה שֶׁל מוֹכִין?
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.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: טוֹמְנִין בְּגִיזֵּי צֶמֶר וּבְצִיפֵּי צֶמֶר וּבִלְשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁל אַרְגָּמָן וּבְמוֹכִין, וְאֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן.
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.
אִי מִשּׁוּם הָא — לָא אִירְיָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם לֹא טָמַן בָּהֶן אֵין מְטַלְטְלִין אוֹתָן.
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].
אִי הָכִי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא! מַהוּ דְתֵימָא חֲזֵי לְמִזְגָּא עֲלַיְיהוּ, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
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.
רַב חִסְדָּא שְׁרָא לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי אוּדְרָא לְבֵי סַדְיָא בְּשַׁבְּתָא. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב חָנָן בַּר חִסְדָּא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: מַתִּירִין בֵּית הַצַּוָּאר בְּשַׁבָּת, אֲבָל לֹא פּוֹתְחִין. וְאֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶת הַמּוֹכִין לֹא לְתוֹךְ הַכַּר וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ הַכֶּסֶת בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּשַׁבָּת.
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.
לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא בְּחַדְתֵי הָא בְּעַתִּיקֵי.
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.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶת הַמּוֹכִין לֹא לְתוֹךְ הַכַּר וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ הַכֶּסֶת בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּשַׁבָּת. נָשְׁרוּ, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתָן בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר בְּיוֹם טוֹב.
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַפּוֹתֵחַ בֵּית הַצַּוָּאר בְּשַׁבָּת — חַיָּיב חַטָּאת.
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.
מַתְקִיף לַהּ רַב כָּהֲנָא:
Rav Kahana strongly objects to this:
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.
