Shabbat 252:1

שיש להם בית אחיזה ניטלין בשבת ואמר רב יהודה בר שילא אמר רב אסי אמר רבי יוחנן והוא שיש תורת כלי עליהן

which have a handle on the Sabbath. Whereon R. Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: Providing that they have the character of utensils.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the lids themselves must be fit for use as vessels. But how can a cane rank as a utensil? ');">¹</span>

וכי תימא הכא נמי דאיכא תורת כלי עליו ומי בעי רשב"ג תורת כלי עליו והתניא חריות של דקל שגדרן לשם עצים ונמלך עליהן לישיבה צריך לקשר רשב"ג אומר אין צריך לקשר

And should you answer, Here too [it means] where it ranks as a utensil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if the cane may be used for stirring olives in the vat. ');">²</span>

רבי יוחנן סבירא ליה כוותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא

— does then R. Simeon b. Gamaliel require it to have the character of a utensil? Surely it was taught: As for the dried branches of a palm tree which one cut down for fuel and then changed his mind, [intending them for sitting thereon], he must tie them together.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 226, n. 1. ');">³</span>

דרש רבי יצחק נפחא אפתחא דריש גלותא הלכה כרבי אליעזר מתיב רב עמרם ומדבריהם למדנו שפוקקין ומודדין וקושרין בשבת

R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: He need not tie them together!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They may be handled without tying, though they are certainly not utensils. ');">⁴</span>

א"ל [אביי] מאי דעתיך משום דקתני סתמא נגר הנגרר נמי סתמא היא ואפי' הכי מעשה רב:

— R. Johanan agrees with him in one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if it is prepared it need not be tied. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> (כל) כיסוי הכלים שיש להם בית אחיזה ניטלין בשבת א"ר יוסי בד"א בכיסוי קרקעות אבל בכיסוי הכלים בין כך ובין כך ניטלין בשבת:

and disagrees with him in the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Holding that they must have the character of a utensil. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה בר שילא א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן והוא שיש תורת כלי עליהן דכ"ע כסוי קרקעות אם יש להן בית אחיזה אין אי לא לא כסוי הכלים אע"ג דאין להם בית אחיזה

R. Isaac the smith<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Many of the Rabbis were tradesmen or workers; e.g., R. Johanan the cobbler; R. Papa, who was a brewer; Hillel at one time a wood-cutter. ');">⁷</span>

כי פליגי בכלים דחברינהו בארעא מ"ס גזרינן ומ"ס לא גזרינן

lectured at the entrance of the Resh Galutha:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 217, 11. 7. ');">⁸</span>

לישנא אחרינא כי פליגי בכיסוי תנור מר מדמי ליה לכיסוי קרקע ומר מדמי ליה לכיסוי כלים:

The <i>halachah</i> is as R. Eliezer. R. Amram objected: And from their words we learn that we may close (a skylight], measure [a mikweh], and tie [a temporary knot] on the Sabbath!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah infra 157a. The reference there is to a cloth that is not fastened and suspended, and yet we may close a skylight with it. ');">⁹</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כל הכלים</strong></big><br><br>

— Said Abaye to him, What is your view: because it is taught anonymously?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' You assume that that proves the halachah is so, for otherwise you could simply answer that it represents the Rabbis' view only and is not a final ruling. ');">¹⁰</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>מפנין</strong></big> אפילו ארבע וחמש קופות של תבן ושל תבואה מפני האורחים ומפני בטול בהמ"ד אבל לא את האוצר

[But the Mishnah concerning] a dragging bolt is also anonymous!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there R. Eliezer's view is stated. ');">¹¹</span>

מפנין תרומה טהורה ודמאי ומעשר ראשון שניטלה תרומתו ומעשר שני והקדש שנפדו והתורמוס היבש מפני שהוא מאכל לעזים

— Yet even so an actual incident is weightier.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Mishnah infra 157 it is not merely a theoretical ruling but bears on actual practice. Therefore one may assume that it states the final ruling, and this refutes R. Isaac. ');">¹²</span>

אבל לא את הטבל ולא את מעשר [ראשון] שלא נטלה תרומתו ולא את מעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו ולא את הלוף ולא את החרדל ר' שמעון בן גמליאל מתיר בלוף מפני שהוא מאכל עורבין

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ALL LIDS OF UTENSILS WHICH HAVE A HANDLE MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH. SAID R. JOSE, WHEN IS THAT SAID? IN THE CASE OF LIDS OF GROUND [BUILDINGS],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the lid or cover of a pit built in the ground. When they have a handle they are obviously not part of the pit and are meant to be put on and taken off. But otherwise they seem to be there permanently: hence placing them there is like building, and removing them is like demolishing. ');">¹³</span>

חבילי קש וחבילי עצים וחבילי זרדים אם התקינן למאכל בהמה מטלטלין אותן ואם לאו אין מטלטלין אותן

BUT THE LIDS OF UTENSILS MAY IN ANY CASE BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> השתא חמש מפנין ארבע מיבעיא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: Provided that they have the character of a utensil. All agree: Covers of ground [buildings may be handled] only if they have a handle but not otherwise; covers of utensils, even if they have no handle. Where do they differ? In respect of utensils joined to the ground: one Master holds: We forbid (them] preventively,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest they be confused with the lid of ground. buildings. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב חסדא ארבע מחמש (איכא דאמרי ארבע מאוצר קטן) וחמש מאוצר גדול

while the other Master holds, We do not forbid preventively. Another version: Where do they differ? In respect of an oven cover:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 620, n. 8 for its construction. ');">¹⁵</span>

ומאי אבל לא את האוצר שלא יתחיל באוצר תחלה ומני רבי יהודה היא דאית ליה מוקצה

one Master likens it to the cover of a ground [building], while the other Master likens it to the cover of utensils.

ושמואל אמר ארבע וחמש

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ONE MAY CLEAR AWAY EVEN FOUR OR FIVE BASKETS OF STRAW OR PRODUCE [GRAIN] TO MAKE ROOM FOR GUESTS OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE NEGLECT OF THE <i>BETH HAMIDRASH</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Caused by lack of room for the disciples. ');">¹⁶</span> BUT NOT THE STORE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Explained infra. ');">¹⁷</span> ONE MAY CLEAR AWAY CLEAN <i>TERUMAH</i>, DEM'AI,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁸</span> THE FIRST TITHE WHOSE <i>TERUMAH</i> HAS BEEN SEPARATED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first tithe belonged to the Levite; a tenth thereof, called terumah ('septs ration'), was given to the priest. ');">¹⁹</span> REDEEMED SECOND TITHE AND HEKDESH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second tithe was to be eaten by an Israelite owner in Jerusalem. Both it and hekdesh, q.v. Glos., could be redeemed, whereby they became like ordinary produce, save in a few respects, and then consumed. (Hekdesh, if an animal dedicated as a sacrifice, might be redeemed only if it received a blemish.) ');">²⁰</span> AND DRY LUPINES, BECAUSE IT IS FOOD FOR GOATS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var lec.: for the poor. ');">²¹</span> BUT [ONE MAY] NOT [CLEAR AWAY] <i>TEBEL</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁸</span> THE FIRST TITHE WHEREOF <i>TERUMAH</i> HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN, UNREDEEMED SECOND TITHE OR HEKDESH, LOF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jast.: a plant similar to colocasia, with edible leaves and root, and bearing beans. It is classified with onions and garlic. ');">²²</span> OR MUSTARD. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL PERMITS [IT] IN THE CASE OF LOF, BECAUSE IT IS FOOD FOR RAVENS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which some wealthy people bred. ');">²³</span> AS FOR BUNDLES OF STRAW,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, stubble. ');">²⁴</span> TWIGS, OR YOUNG SHOOTS, IF THEY WERE PREPARED AS ANIMAL FODDER, THEY MAY BE MOVED; IF NOT, THEY MAY NOT BE MOVED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the reason of the others too which may not be moved, viz., because they cannot be used even as animal fodder. ');">²⁵</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Seeing that five may be cleared away, need four be stated? — Said R. Hisda: [It means] four out of five.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the entire store consists of five, only four may be removed, but not all, lest depressions in the ground are revealed which may be levelled on the Sabbath. ');">²⁶</span> Some there are who state, Four of a small store,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. omit: 'Some there are&nbsp;… small store'. ');">²⁷</span> and five of a large store. And what does BUT NOT THE STORE mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It cannot mean that the whole store must not be cleared away, since on the present interpretation that is already implied in the first clause. ');">²⁸</span> That one must not commence [dealing] with a store for the first time;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he had not already started using it for food, either for himself or for his animals, before the Sabbath, it is mukzeh and must not be touched. ');">²⁹</span> and which [Tanna] rules [thus]? It is R. Judah, who accepts [the interdict of] mukzeh. But Samuel said: [It means] four or five