Commentary for Shabbat 56:12

ומדקא מתרץ רב אדא בר אהבה אליבא דר' יהודה ש"מ כר"י ס"ל ומי א"ר אדא בר אהבה הכי והא"ר אדא בר אהבה

while R. Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it [its previous condition] is indeed annulled. But with reference to lighting, wherein do they differ? — R. Eleazar said in R. Oshaia's name, and R. Adda b. Ahabah said likewise: The reference here is to [a rag] exactly three [fingerbreadths] square;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the smallest size liable to defilement (supra 26b); in that sense it is regarded as a whole garment (or utensil). ');">²¹</span> and also to a Festival falling on the eve of the Sabbath. Now, all agree with R. Judah, who maintained, One may fire [an oven, etc.,] with [whole] utensils, but not with broken utensils.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On Festivals. A whole utensil may be handled on Festivals, and therefore it may be taken for burning. But if a utensil is broken on the Festival so that it can now be used as fuel only, it is regarded as a thing newly-created (nolad v. Glos.)-i.e., a new use for it has just been created-and such may not be handled on Festivals. ');">²²</span> Further, all agree with 'Ulla's dictum, viz.: He who lights must light the greater part [of the wick] which protrudes. R. Eliezer holds that twisting is of no avail, and immediately one kindles it slightly it becomes a broken utensil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was the minimum size originally. ');">²³</span> and when he goes on kindling it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until the greater part is alight. ');">²⁴</span> he kindles a broken utensil. But R. Akiba holds that twisting is effective, and it does not bear the character of a utensil, and therefore when he kindles, he kindles a mere piece of wood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this twisted rag is just like a piece of wood, ');">²⁵</span> R. Joseph observed: This is what I learnt, exactly three [fingerbreadths] square, but did not know in reference to what law. Now, since R. Adda b. Ahabah explains it in accordance with R. Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That nolad (v. n. 3) is forbidden. ');">²⁶</span> it follows that he himself holds as R. Judah. Yet did R. Adda b. Ahabah say thus? Surely R. Adda b. Ahabah said:

Explore commentary for Shabbat 56:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.