Shabbat 57

If a Gentile hollows out a <i>kab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A measure; or, a kind of artificial leg. ');">¹</span> in a <i>log</i>, an Israelite may heat [the oven] therewith on a Festival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it is nolad, ');">²</span>

Yet why? Is it not nolad!-He states [it] according to the views of R. Eliezer and R. Akiba, but does not hold thus himself. Raba said, This is R. Eliezer's reason: Because one must not light [the Sabbath lamp] with an unsinged wick or unsinged rags.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These do not burn well. Thus R. Eliezer refers to all Sabbaths. ');">³</span>

Then when R. Joseph recited, Exactly three [fingerbreadths] square, In respect of what law [was it]? — In respect of uncleanness. For we learnt, The three [fingerbreadths] square of which they [the Sages] spoke is exclusive of the hem: this is R. Simeon's view. But the Sages say: Exactly three [fingerbreadths] square.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Kelim. XXVIII, 7. ');">⁴</span> Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One may fire [an oven, etc.,] with [whole] utensils, but not with broken utensils: this is R. Judah's opinion; but R. Simeon permits it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He permits nolad. ');">⁵</span>

One may fire [it] with dates;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they may be handled as food, they may be handled as fuel. ');">⁶</span> but if they are eaten, one may not fire [it] with their stones:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This and the following are similar to the first, the stones of dates and the shells of nuts being like fragments of utensils. ');">⁷</span>

that is R. Judah's opinion; but R. Simeon permits it. One may heat with nuts: if they are eaten, one must not heat with their shells: this is R. Judah's ruling; but R. Simeon permits it. Now, they are [all] necessary. For if we were told the first, R. Judah rules [thus] in that case, because it was a utensil before but only a fragment of a utensil now, and so it is nolad, hence forbidden; but as for dates, since they were stones originally and are stones now, I might argue that it is well [permitted]. And if we were informed [this] of dates, I might say, [the reason is] because they [the stones] were originally concealed but are now revealed; but as for nutshells, which were uncovered originally and are uncovered still, I might argue that it is well [permitted]. Thus they are necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Reversing the argument, all cases are necessary for R. Simeon's view. ');">⁸</span>

Now, this [ruling] of Rab was stated not explicitly but by implication. For Rab ate dates and threw the stones into a pan;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A kind of coal brazier.-This was done on weekdays. ');">⁹</span> whereupon R. Hiyya said to him, 'Son of great ancestors!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 3b, ');">¹⁰</span>

A similar act on Festivals is forbidden.' Did he accept [this ruling] from him or not? — Come and hear: For when Rab came to Babylon,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab was a Babylonian who went to study in Palestine and then returned. ');">¹¹</span> he ate dates<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On Festivals. ');">¹²</span>

and threw the stones to animals. Surely this means Persian [dates]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These become very ripe, so that the whole of the fruit can be removed from the stones. Since he threw them to animals, he evidently held that they might be handled, and could also have used them for fuel. Hence he must have rejected R. Hiyya's view. ');">¹³</span> No: this means Syrian [dates], since they are fit [for handling] on account of their flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fruit cannot be entirely separated from the stone. ');">¹⁴</span>

R. Samuel b. Bar Hanah said to R. Joseph: According to R. Judah who ruled, One may fire [an oven] with utensils, but not with broken utensils, — immediately one lights with it a little it becomes a broken utensil, and when he stirs [the fuel] he is stirring something that is forbidden? — He acts in accordance with R. Mattenah: For R. Mattenah said in Rab's name: if wood falls from a palm tree into a stove on a Festival, one adds more prepared wood and lights them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The timber that falls may not be handled by itself, since it was not destined for this before the Festival. Hence a greater quantity of wood set aside for fuel must be added, and both may be handled together. The same must be done here. ');">¹⁵</span> R. Hamnuna said: The reference here [in our Mishnah] is to [a rag] less than three [handbreadths] square,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He holds that if it is three handbreadths square, it retains the character of a garment and is liable to defilement on all views. ');">¹⁶</span> and they taught here some of the leniencies [relating to the law] of rags, both R. Eliezer and R. Akiba following their views. For we learnt: If [material] less than three [handbreadths] square is set aside for stopping a bath, pouring from a pot,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Using this material as a holder. ');">¹⁷</span> or cleaning a mill therewith, whether it is of prepared (material] or not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meaning is discussed below. ');">¹⁸</span> it is unclean:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., liable to uncleanness as a garment (beged), which connotes any material that may be put to a useful purpose. ');">¹⁹</span> that is R. Eliezer's view; R. Joshua maintained: Whether it is of prepared [material] or not, it is clean; R. Akiba ruled: If of prepared [material], it is unclean; if of unprepared, it is clean. Now 'Ulla-others state, Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name-said: All admit that if it was thrown away on the refuse heap,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And then salved for one of these purposes. ');">²⁰</span> it is universally agreed that it is clean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is less than three handbreadths square, and was also thrown away as worthless, it is certainly not a 'garment', even when salved. ');">²¹</span>