Shabbat 248:1

אין מוציאין את הקטן ואת הלולב ואת ספר תורה לרה"ר ובית הלל מתירין

One may not carry out an infant, a lulab,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The palm branch; v. Lev. XXIII, 40. ');">¹</span> or a Scroll of the Law into the street;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On Festivals, for only the preparation of food is permitted. Hence the Mishnah stating that this is the only difference, etc., agrees with Beth Shammai. ');">²</span>

אימר דשמעת להו לבית שמאי הוצאה טלטול מי שמעת להו וטלטול גופיה לאו משום הוצאה היא

but Beth Hillel permit it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the law that produce may be dropped, etc., agrees with Beth Hillel. ');">³</span> But perhaps you know<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'hear'. ');">⁴</span>

ואף רב סבר לה להא דרבא דאמר רב מר שלא יגנב זהו טלטול שלא לצורך ואסור טעמא שלא יגנב אבל לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו מותר

Beth Shammai [to rule thus only in respect of] carrying out; do you know them [to rule likewise in respect of] handling? — Is then handling itself not [forbidden on account of] carrying out?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Carrying out naturally involves handling, and the latter was forbidden on account of the former. — So Rashi in Bez. 37a. which seems the correct interpretation on the present reading. But the reading there, as well as a variant here, is: 'is not handling a (pre)requisite of carrying out'? (v. Rashi and Marginal Gloss.). Hence handling is forbidden because it partakes of the nature of carrying out. Thus when Beth Shammai prohibit carrying out they also prohibit handling. ');">⁵</span> Now, Rab too holds this [view] of Raba. For Rab said: [Moving] a hoe lest it be stolen is unnecessary handling, and is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as moving it from the sun to the shade. ');">⁶</span>

איני והא רב כהנא איקלע לבי רב ואמר אייתו ליה שותא לכהנא ליתיב עליה לאו למימרא דדבר שמלאכתו לאיסור לצורך גופו אין לצורך מקומו לא

Thus only when it is in order that it should not be stolen, but if it is required for itself or its place is required, it is permitted. But that is not so? For R. Kahana visited Rab's house, whereupon he ordered, Bring a <i>log</i> of wood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BaH. Rashi and Jast. translate: a trap. ');">⁷</span> for Kahana to sit. [Now] surely that was to imply that a thing whose function is for a forbidden purpose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A log is used as fuel, which, of course, is forbidden on the Sabbath. Trapping too (according to Rashi's translation) is forbidden. ');">⁸</span>

הכי אמר להו שקולו שותא מקמי כהנא ואי בעית אימא התם מחמה לצל הוה

[may be handled] only when required itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore he emphasized that it was wanted for a seat. ');">⁹</span> but not [merely] when its place is required? — This is what he said to them: Remove the <i>log</i> from Kahana's presence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he may sit in its place. ');">¹⁰</span>

רב מרי בר רחל הוה ליה ההיא בי סדיותא בשמשא אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה מהו לטלטולינהו אמר ליה שרי אית לי אחרינא חזו לאורחין אית לי נמי לאורחים אמר ליה גלית אדעתיך דכרבה סבירא לך לכולי עלמא שרי לדידך אסיר

Alternatively, there it was [moved] from the sun to the shade.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore he emphasized the true purpose, so that they might not think that it was moved for that reason alone. ');">¹¹</span> R. Mari b. Rachel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His father at the time of his conception was not a Jew; hence he is called by his mother's name. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רבי אבא אמר רבי חייא בר אשי אמר רב מכבדות של מילתא מותר לטלטלן בשבת אבל של תמרה לא

had some pillows<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, bolsters. ');">¹³</span> lying in the sun. He went to Raba and asked him, May these be moved? — It is permitted replied he.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with his view supra a, q.v. ');">¹⁴</span>

רבי אלעזר אומר אף של תמרה במאי עסקינן אילימא לצורך גופו ולצורך מקומו בהא לימא רב של תמרה לא והא רב כרבא סבירא ליה אלא מחמה לצל בהא לימא ר' אלעזר אף של תמרה לעולם מחמה לצל אימא וכן אמר רבי אלעזר:

[But] I have others?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So I do not need these for themselves. ');">¹⁵</span> — They are of use for guests. I have [some] for guests too? — You have revealed your opinion that you agree with Rabbah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, Abaye, supra a. ');">¹⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל הכלים הניטלין בשבת שבריהן ניטלין עמהן ובלבד שיהו עושין מעין מלאכה

observed he: to all others it is permitted, but to you it is forbidden. R. Abba said in the name of R. Hiyya b. Ashi in Rab's name: Table brushes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For clearing the crumbs off the table, which is permitted. ');">¹⁷</span>

שברי עריבה לכסות בהן את פי החבית שברי זכוכית לכסות בהן את פי הפך

[made] of cloth may be handled on the Sabbath, but not [those made] of palm[-twigs];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., brooms used for sweeping the floor, which is forbidden. ');">¹⁸</span> R. Eleazar maintained: Even [those made] of palm[-twigs]. What are we discussing: Shall we say [where they are handled] when required in themselves or their place is required, shall Rab rule here 'but not [those made] of palm[-twigs]'? Surely Rab agrees with Raba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Permitting this. ');">¹⁹</span>

רבי יהודה אומר בלבד שיהו עושין מעין מלאכתן שברי עריבה לצוק לתוכן מקפה ושל זכוכית לצוק לתוכן שמן:

Again, if it means from the sun to the shade, shall R. Eleazar rule here 'even [those made] of palms'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None permit this. ');">²⁰</span> — In truth [it means] from the sun to the shade: say, And thus did R. Eleazar rule.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like Rab, the former version of R. Eleazar's view being incorrect. ');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחלוקת שנשברו מערב שבת דמר סבר מעין מלאכתן אין מעין מלאכה אחרת לא ומר סבר אפילו מעין מלאכה אחרת

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ALL UTENSILS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH, THEIR FRAGMENTS MAY BE HANDLED TOO,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'with them'. (The words are, however, rightly omitted in MS.M.] ');">²²</span> PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THEY CAN PERFORM SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF WORK. [THUS]: THE FRAGMENTS OF A KNEADING TROUGH [THAT CAN BE USED] TO COVER THE MOUTH OF A BARREL THEREWITH, [AND] THE FRAGMENTS OF A GLASS, TO COVER THEREWITH THE MOUTH OF A CRUSE. R. JUDAH MAINTAINED: PROVIDED THAT THEY CAN PERFORM SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF THEIR OWN [FORMER] WORK;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., similar to that performed by the whole utensil. ');">²³</span>

אבל נשברו בשבת דברי הכל מותרין הואיל ומוכנין על גבי אביהן מותר

[THUS:] THE FRAGMENTS OF A KNEADING TROUGH, TO POUR A THICK MASS THEREIN;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like the dough kneaded in the trough. ');">²⁴</span> OR OF A GLASS, TO POUR OIL THEREIN.

מותיב רב זוטראי מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The controversy is only if they were broken from the eve of the Sabbath, one Master holding: Only [provided they are fit for] something in the nature of their own [former] work, but not for something in the nature of a different work; whereas the other Master holds: Even [if fit] for something in the nature of a different work. But if they are broken on the Sabbath, all agree that they are permitted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whatever their present use. ');">²⁵</span> since they are mukan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²⁶</span>

דנשברו אימת אילימא דנשברו מערב יום טוב עצים בעלמא נינהו אלא לאו ביום טוב וקתני מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקים בשברי כלים

in virtue of their origin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 214, n. 5. ');">²⁷</span> R. Zutra objected: 'We may heat [an oven] with utensils, but not with fragments of utensils'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On Festivals. ');">²⁸</span>

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחלוקת שנשברו בשבת דמר סבר מוכן הוא ומר סבר נולד הוא אבל מערב שבת דברי הכל מותרין הואיל והוכנו למלאכה מבעוד יום

Now when were these broken? Shall we say that they were broken from the eve of the Festival, then they are simply pieces of wood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may certainly be used. ');">²⁹</span> Hence it must surely be on the Festival, yet he teaches, 'We may heat with utensils, but not with fragments of utensils'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which refutes Samuel's view reported by Rab Judah. ');">³⁰</span>

תני חדא מסיקין בכלים ואין מסיקין בשברי כלים ותניא אידך כשם שמסיקין בכלים כך מסיקין בשברי כלים ותניא אידך אין מסיקין לא בכלים ולא בשברי כלים

— Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The controversy is only if they are broken on the Sabbath, one Master holding that they are mukan, whilst the other Master holds that they are nolad.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Newly created (v. Glos.). As a fragment it has only just come into existence, and therefore must not be used on the Sabbath. ');">³¹</span> But [if broken] on Sabbath eve, all hold that they are permitted, since they were mukan for work from the day time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from before the commencement of the Sabbath they stood to be used as fuel, and so they are regarded as ready for their new function. ');">³²</span>

הא רבי יהודה הא רבי שמעון הא רבי נחמיה

One [Baraitha] taught: We may heat with utensils, but not with fragments of utensils; another was taught: Just as we may heat with utensils, so may we heat with fragments of utensils: whilst a third taught: We may heat neither with utensils nor with fragments of utensils. One agrees with R. Judah, one with R. Simeon, and the last with R. Nehemiah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (i) R. Judah: both mukzeh and nolad are forbidden, hence the prohibition of fragments. (ii) R. Simeon: mukzeh and nolad are permitted, hence both fragments and vessel are permissible; (iii) R. Nehemiah: a utensil may be handled on the Sabbath or Festival only for its normal function, hence the prohibition of both. ');">³³</span> R. Nahman said: The bricks that are left over from a building may be handled, since they are fit to sit on.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the last few may possibly be kept for that purpose. ');">³⁴</span>

אמר רב נחמן הני ליבני דאישתיור מבניינא שרי לטלטולינהו דחזו למיזגא עלייהו שרגינהו ודאי אקצינהו

[But] if he places them in rows, then he has certainly set them apart.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For another building; hence they are mukzeh and must not be handled. ');">³⁵</span> R. Nahman said in Samuel's name: A small shard may be moved about in a courtyard, but not in a <i>karmelith</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the former vessels may generally be found for which the shard can be used as a cover, but not in the latter. ');">³⁶</span>

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל חרס קטנה מותר לטלטל בחצר אבל בכרמלית לא ורב נחמן דידיה אמר אפילו בכרמלית אבל ברה"ר לא ורבא אמר אפילו ברה"ר

But R. Nahman [giving] his own [view] maintained: Even In a <i>karmelith</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where people sometimes sit down; one can cover saliva with this. ');">³⁷</span> but not in the street; whereas Raba said: Even in the street.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is a utensil in a courtyard, it remains so elsewhere. ');">³⁸</span>

ואזדא רבא לטעמיה דרבא הוה קאזיל בריתקא דמחוזא אתווסאי מסאניה טינא אתא שמעיה שקל חספא וקא מכפר ליה רמו ביה רבנן קלא אמר לא מיסתייא דלא גמירי מיגמר נמי מגמרי אילו בחצר הואי מי לא הוה חזיא לכסויי ביה מנא הכא נמי חזיא לדידי

Now, Raba is consistent with his view. For Raba was walking in the manor of Mahoza,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 277, n. 8. and B. B., Sonc. ed., p. 60, n. 4. ');">³⁹</span> when his shoes become soiled with clay; [so] his attendant came, took a shard, and wiped it off. The Rabbis (his disciples] rebuked him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'lifted their voice against him'. ');">⁴⁰</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מגופת חבית שנכתתה מותר לטלטל בשבת תניא נמי הכי מגופה שנכתתה היא ושבריה מותר לטלטלה בשבת ולא יספות ממנה שבר לכסות בה את הכלי ולסמוך בה כרעי המטה ואם זרקה באשפה אסור

Said he, It is not enough that they have not learnt — they would even teach! If it were in a courtyard, would it not be fit for covering a utensil? Here too I have a use for it. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The bung of a barrel which is broken in pieces may be handled on the Sabbath. It was taught likewise: If a bung is broken in pieces [both] it and the fragments thereof may be handled on the Sabbath. But one must not trim a fragment thereof to cover a vessel or support the legs of a bed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 199, n. 2. Here, however, it is probably meant literally. ');">⁴¹</span>

מתקיף לה רב פפא אלא מעתה זריק ליה לגלימיה ה"נ דאסור אלא אמר רב פפא

therewith; but if one throws it away on the dung heap, it is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the owner has shown that it has ceased to be a utensil in his eyes. ');">⁴²</span> R. Papa demurred: If so, if one throws away his robe, is that too prohibited?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! ');">⁴³</span> Rather said R. Papa: