Mesorat%20hashas for Shabbat 249:16

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האבן שבקירויה אם ממלאין בה ואינה נופלת ממלאין בה ואם לאו אין ממלאין בה

And the other [R. Judah] too, surely 'they shall be unclean unto you' is written? — That [is explained] as Rab Judah's dictum in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They differ only in respect of the first firing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it had never yet been fired when it was set over the pit. The first firing hardens the clay and technically completes the manufacture of the oven, and R. Judah holds that in this case it cannot be completed at all, for the reasons stated, and so it never becomes an oven. ');">¹⁴</span> but at the second firing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it was originally set upon the ground in the usual manner, fired, and then removed to the pit. ');">¹⁵</span> even if it is suspended to a camel's neck.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is unclean, since ');">¹⁶</span> 'Ulla observed: And as for the first firing, according to the Rabbis, even if it is suspended from a camel's neck!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wherever it is, it is unclean. — It is in reference to the fragments of this oven that R. Meir and R. Judah dispute, seeing that in the first place it was not absolutely completed. ');">¹⁷</span> R. Ashi demurred: If so, instead of disputing about the fragments of the oven, let them dispute about the oven itself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it may be handled on the Sabbath. ');">¹⁸</span> [for] seeing that the oven itself, according to R. Judah, is not a utensil, need the fragments [be mentioned]? Rather said R. Ashi: In truth it is as we originally stated, and (the controversy is] where it [the fragment] can serve as a [baking] tile,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tiles which were heated to bake something placed upon them. Thus it can still be used in a manner akin to its original function, but not altogether so, for originally one baked inside the oven, whereas now the food to be baked must be placed on top. ');">¹⁹</span> whilst R. Meir argues on R. Judah's opinion. [Thus:] according to my view, even if they [the fragments] can perform something in the nature of [any] work;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They may be handled. ');">²⁰</span> but even on your view, you must at least agree with me [here] that in such a case, it is its own work. But R. Judah [argues]: It is dissimilar. There it is heated from within, here it is heated from without; there it stands, here it does not stand. 'R. Jose testified in the name of R. Eleazar b. Jacob concerning the fragments of an old oven, that they may be handled on the Sabbath, and concerning its lid, that it does not require a handle.' Rabina said: In accordance with whom do we handle nowadays the oven lids of the town Mehasia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 39, n. 6. ');">²¹</span> which have no handle? In accordance with whom? R. Eleazar b. Jacob. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A STONE [IS PLACED] IN A PUMPKIN SHELL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used for drawing water. As the pumpkin was too light to sink, a stone was used to weigh it. ');">²²</span> AND ONE CAN DRAW [WATER] IN IT AND IT [THE STONE] DOES NOT FALL OUT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being securely fastened. ');">²³</span> ONE MAY DRAW [WATER] IN IT; IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT DRAW WATER IN IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The stone is then like any other stone, which may not be handled, and the pumpkin too may not be handled, because it serves as a stand for a forbidden article (cf. supra 117a top). ');">²⁴</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Shabbat 249:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.