Shabbat 249

אם זרקה מבעוד יום לאשפה אסורה

If he threw it away whilst yet day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on Friday before the commencement of the Sabbath. ');">¹</span>

אמר בר המדורי אמר שמואל קרומיות של מחצלת מותר לטלטלם בשבת מ"ט אמר רבא בר המדורי אסברא לי מחצלת גופא למאי חזיא לכסויי ביה עפרא הני נמי חזיין לכסויי בהו טינופת

it is forbidden.

א"ר זירא אמר רב שירי פרוזמיות אסור לטלטלן בשבת אמר אביי במטלניות שאין בהן ג' על ג' דלא חזיין לא לעניים ולא לעשירים:

Bar Hamduri said in Samuel's name: Shreds of reeds detached from a mat may be handled on the Sabbath. What is the reason? — Said Raba, Bar Hamduri explained it to me: What is the [reed-] mat itself fit for? For covering the earth. These too are fit for covering dirt.

ת"ר שברי תנור ישן הרי הן ככל הכלים הניטלין בחצר דברי ר"מ ר' יהודה אומר אין ניטלין העיד ר' יוסי משום ר"א בן יעקב על שברי תנור ישן שניטלין בשבת ועל כיסויו שאינו צריך בית יד

R. Zera said in Rab's name: Pieces of silk of aprons may not be handled on the Sabbath. Said Abaye: This refers to rags less than three [fingerbreadths] square, which are of no use to rich or poor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 26b. ');">²</span>

במאי קמיפלגי אמר אביי בעושין מעין מלאכה ואין עושין מעין מלאכתן קמיפלגי ואזדא ר' יהודה לטעמיה ור"מ לטעמיה

Our Rabbis taught: The fragments of an old oven<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one that has already been fired, so that the clay whereof it is made is hardened and fit for its work. ');">³</span>

מתקיף לה רבא אי הכי אדמיפלגי בשברי תנור ליפלגו בשברי כלים בעלמא

are like all utensils which may be handled in a courtyard: this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah said: They may not be handled. 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 [of the oven] that it does not require a handle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order that it shall be permissible to handle it on the Sabbath. There is also an opposing view, v. infra 126b. ');">⁴</span>

אלא אמר רבא בשברי דהאי תנור קמיפלגי דתנן נתנו על פי הבור או על פי הדות ונתן שם אבן רבי יהודה אומר אם מסיק מלמטה והוא נסוק מלמעלה טמא ואם לאו טהור וחכמים אומרים הואיל והוסק מ"מ טמא

Wherein do they differ? — Said Abaye: where they perform something in the nature of work;' but not in the nature of their own [former] work,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g.. they are fit for covering a barrel, but one cannot bake in them. ');">⁵</span>

ובמאי קמיפלגי בהאי קרא (ויקרא יא, לה) תנור וכירים יותץ טמאים הם וטמאים יהיו לכם רבי יהודה סבר מחוסר נתיצה טמא שאין מחוסר נתיצה טהור ורבנן סברי טמאים יהיו לכם מ"מ

R. Judah being consistent with his view, and R. Meir with his.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As expressed in the Mishnah supra 124b. ');">⁶</span>

ורבנן נמי הכתיב יותץ ההוא לאידך גיסא דסלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דחבריה בארעא כגופא דארעא דמי קמ"ל

Raba demurred: If so, instead of disputing about the fragments of an oven, let them dispute about the fragments of utensils in general? Rather said Raba: They dispute about the fragments of the following oven. For we learnt: If he sets it [the oven] over the mouth of a pit or a cellar and places a stone there, — R. Judah said: If one can heat it from underneath and it is [thereby] heated above, it is unclean; if not, it is clean. But the Sages maintain: Since it can in any wise be heated, it is unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to an oven. In ancient days this consisted merely of walls, without a separate bottom, and was set upon the ground and plastered thereto. Now, here the oven is set over the walls of a pit, not actually on the ground, and a stone is placed between the oven and the pit as a wedge. R. Judah maintains that if the oven is so placed, e.g., its walls almost correspond to those of the pit, that if a fire is made beneath the oven, in the pit's atmosphere, the oven itself is heated (sufficiently for its work), it is an 'oven' in the technical sense (as stated below) and is susceptible to defilement. But if the fire must be placed in the atmosphere of the oven, it is not an 'oven' and cannot be defiled. (Rashi). ');">⁷</span>

ואידך נמי הכתיב טמאים יהיו לכם ההיא כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מחלוקת בהיסק ראשון אבל בהיסק שני אפילו תלוי בצואר גמל

And wherein do they differ? In this verse; Whether oven, or range of pots, it shall be torn down: they are unclean, shall be unclean unto you.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 35. ');">⁸</span>

אמר עולא והיסק ראשון לרבנן אפילו תלוי בצואר גמל

R. Judah holds: Where tearing down is wanting it is unclean, whilst where tearing down is not wanting it is not unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yuttaz, fr. nathaz, is generally applicable to the tearing down or demolishing of anything attached to the soil, e.g., a house. Now, since the Bible orders that if an oven is defiled it shall be torn down, it follows that it must be so closely joined to the soil that one can speak of tearing it down. Otherwise the Scriptural law does not apply to it, because technically it is 'torn down' from the very time that it is fixed. Hence in the present case if it is not so closely joined to the ground that one can make a fire in the pit on which it stands and thereby heat the oven, it is likewise 'torn down' ab initio, and therefore is not an 'oven' which can be defiled. By 'unclean' and 'not unclean' susceptibility and non-susceptibility to uncleanness is meant. ');">⁹</span>

מתקיף לה רב אשי אי הכי אדמיפלגי בשברי תנור ליפלגו בתנור גופה השתא תנור גופה לרבי יהודה לא הוי מנא שבריו מיבעיא

Whereas the Rabbis hold: 'They shall be unclean unto you' [implies] in all cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the repetition is emphatic. ');">¹⁰</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי לעולם כדאמרן מעיקרא ובעושה מעשה טפקא ורבי מאיר לדבריו דרבי יהודה קאמר לדידי אפילו בעושין מעין מלאכה אלא לדידך אודי לי מיהא דכהאי גוונא מלאכתו הוא

But the Rabbis too, surely it is written, 'it shall be torn down'? — That is [intended] in the opposite direction:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. it teaches not leniency but greater stringency, as explained. ');">¹¹</span>

ורבי יהודה לא דמי התם הסקו מבפנים הכא הסקו מבחוץ התם מעומד הכא לאו מעומד:

for one might argue, Since it is attached to the ground, it is like the very ground itself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which of course, cannot be defiled. ');">¹²</span>

העיד ר' יוסי משום רבי אליעזר בן יעקב על שברי תנור ישן שניטלין בשבת ועל כיסויו שאינו צריך בית יד: אמר רבינא כמאן מטלטלינן האידנא כיסוי דתנורי דמתא מחסיא דאין להם בית אחיזה כמאן כר"א בן יעקב

therefore it informs us [otherwise].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that even where it shall be 'torn down', as defined in n. 2, is applicable, it is still liable to defilement, and all the more so where it is inapplicable. ');">¹³</span>

<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>