Beitzah 31b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And one may split [wood] neither with a hatchet, nor with a saw, nor with a sickle, but only with a kofitz:

The Gemara has now set aside this matter: that which we learned at the beginning, “One may not split [wood],” is because splitting is labor and excessive exertion, and it is forbidden to split any wood. And thus we learned:

a. One may not split wood, neither from beams that broke on the eve of the Festival, even though they had been designated for kindling at twilight.

b. And it is unnecessary to say that one may not split wood from a beam that was not designated for kindling at twilight, because it broke only on the Festival.

And therefore the Gemara is astonished: How did we learn in the latter clause that splitting is permitted, provided that he does it with a kofitz:

And you said

in the

first clause

of our Mishna:

One may not split at all!

And how are you saying that with a kofitz one may split?!

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

That which we learned in the first clause, to forbid splitting, is not because of labor and exertion; rather, it is because of the prohibition of muktze, and it was stated only with regard to certain beams.

And

the Mishna is deficient

in our Mishna,

and this is what it teaches

in it:

One may not split wood, neither from the stack of beams [

a pile of beams lying on the ground, designated for building] because they are muktze,

nor from the beam

of the house

that broke on the Festival,

and from now on it is not designated for building but for kindling, since at twilight it had been muktze.

But one may split from the beam

of the house

that broke on the eve of the Festival,

for already at twilight it was not designated for building but for kindling, and it was not muktze.

And when they split

the beams permitted for splitting:

they may not split

them

neither with a hatchet, nor with a sickle, nor with a saw, but only with a kofitz,

And the Gemara supports this interpretation, that the prohibition in the first clause is because of muktze:

It was also taught so: One may not split wood, neither from the stack of beams

designated for building

nor from the beam

of the house

that broke on the Festival, because it was not prepared

on the eve of the Festival for use on the Festival.

We learned in the Mishna:

And

one may not split

with a hatchet:

A regular hatchet in the time of the Gemara was used entirely as a craftsman’s implement.

But there were also hatchets whose head had two sides. One side was short, and was made like our hatchets, which are not craftsmen’s implements; this was called the “male” side, and with this side they split the wood into pieces.

Whereas its other side, the broad one, was made as a craftsman’s implement, and was called the “female” side; with it they chopped the wood across its width, something considered a craftsman’s labor.

Our discussion concerns this hatchet, with regard to splitting on the Festival.

Rav Hina bar Shelmaya said in the name of Rav: They taught

to forbid splitting with a hatchet

only

splitting

with

the

female side

of it, on the broad head of the hatchet, with which one splits the wood across its width, since such splitting resembles a craftsman’s labor.

But

splitting pieces of wood into pieces

with

the

male side

of it, on its short head, which does not resemble a craftsman’s labor—

is permitted

to split.

And we raise an objection:

Is it obvious

that this is so? For this is what we learned:

We learned: with a kofitz

that it is permitted to split with it, since it is not a craftsman’s implement, because it has only a short side, entirely a male side. And since this is so, even a hatchet’s male side should be permitted. What does he teach us?!

And we answer: Rav needed to teach us the permission to use a hatchet on its male side.

For

lest you say: This applies

only to the permission to split with a

kofitz alone,

which is only a kofitz and nothing else, and is not a craftsman’s implement at all.

But

if it is a

“hatchet and kofitz,”

which has one broad side like the female side of a hatchet, while on its other side it is not a craftsman’s implement and is like a kofitz, and therefore

I might say [

I would say]:

Since this side [

since its broad side]

is forbidden

to use—

this side also [

even its short side] should be

forbidden.

Therefore

he teaches us

Rav that on its short side it is permitted to split.

And there are those who teach it

Rav’s statement

with regard to the latter clause

of our Mishna, in which we learned: And one may not split

but only with a kofitz:

An ordinary kofitz has only one side fit for cutting, and it is not a craftsman’s implement. But there are those who make it with two cutting sides; on one side it somewhat resembles an ordinary hatchet, which is a craftsman’s implement, and on the other side it is made like the rest of a kofitz. It is concerning this kofitz that Rav spoke.

Rav Hinana bar Shelmaya said in the name of Rav: They taught

that splitting with a kofitz is permitted

only

when he splits

with its male side,

which is the side made like a kofitz, and is not a craftsman’s implement,

but with its female side,

on the side of the kofitz that somewhat resembles a craftsman’s hatchet,

it is forbidden.

And we raise an objection:

Is it obvious?!

For

we learned: nor with a hatchet,

and this kofitz, on its female side, is a hatchet; it is obvious that it is forbidden to split with it?!

And we answer:

Lest you say, this applies to an ordinary hatchet,

which is entirely a craftsman’s implement, and which the Sages forbade.

But a kofitz and a hatchet,

that is to say, an implement whose one side is made like a kofitz and whose other side is like a hatchet,

I might say: Since this side is permitted [

since its short side is permitted],

this side [

the broad side]

is also permitted.

Therefore

he teaches us

Rav that it is permitted to split on the side made like a kofitz.

Mishna:

A house that is full of produce and became breached

the house by itself, through a breach that opened in it,

a person may take

produce from it

from the place of the breach.

And we do not say that the produce is muktze because of a prohibition, since at twilight he could not breach the house in order to take out the produce, for that would be demolishing a tent.

And it is explained in the Gemara that this was not actual construction, but rather stones arranged one on top of another; therefore, there is no Torah prohibition in breaching this house.

And therefore the produce is not muktze, since anything whose use is forbidden only by rabbinic words, and which was muktze only because of that prohibition—if the prohibition is removed, it is permitted, and there is no law of muktze with regard to food. [Meiri

Rabbi Meir says: He may even breach

on the Festival [Gemara]

at the outset

the house,

and take

the produce through the breach, as the reason for this will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Meir says: He may even breach at the outset and take:

It entered our minds to interpret our Mishna as referring to a complete house, and therefore the Gemara is astonished:

Why

does Rabbi Meir permit breaching the house

?! But he is demolishing a tent!

For this is the demolition of a tent; how is it permitted to demolish on the Festival?!

He said,

he answered,

Rav Naḥumi bar Adda said in the name of Shmuel:

Our Mishna is not dealing with a complete house made of bricks joined with mortar, but

with a space of bricks [

stones arranged one on top of another], with no mortar between them. And even according to the Sages, the prohibition in demolishing them is only rabbinic; and according to Rabbi Meir it is permitted, because there is no prohibition of demolition at all.

And the Gemara is still astonished:

No,

for the matter is not so! For although there is no prohibition of demolition with a space of bricks, there is a reason to forbid moving them because of muktze.

For

Rav Naḥman said: These bricks that remained from the construction,

bricks that remained from the building of a structure,

are permitted

to be moved

on Shabbat, since they are fit to recline upon,

for they are fit to lean upon.

But if he

arranged them [

arranged these bricks one on top of another]—

he certainly set them aside!

For he revealed his דעת that he was setting them aside for building, and they are forbidden because of muktze.

And if so, how does Rabbi Meir permit moving the bricks?

He said,

he answered,

Rabbi Zeira: They said this concerning the Festival!

Only on the Festival did Rabbi Meir permit breaching, since he does so for the sake of the joy of the Festival, in order to eat the produce. For labor for the sake of food is permitted on the Festival, and therefore moving muktze was also permitted on it for the sake of a person’s eating.

But he did not

Rabbi Meir permit this

on Shabbat.

And this accords with Rav Naḥman, that the stones are forbidden to be moved because of muktze.

And the Gemara supports Rabbi Zeira’s answer from a beraita:

It was also taught so: Rabbi Meir says: He may even breach

the wall of the house

at the outset, and take

the produce. But only

on the Festival they said

to permit this,

but not on Shabbat,

because the stones are muktze.

Shmuel said: Seals that are on the ground,

such as doors of the openings of pits or caves, closed with ropes that are tied around the doors—he

may untie

their knots in order to open the doors, since this knot is not a permanent knot, for it is destined to be untied every time he opens the door.

But he may not undo

the interweaving of the ropes in order to open the door.

Nor may he cut

the ropes with a knife.

Since it is an act of demolition, and there is a prohibition of the labor of “demolition” in a structure on the ground.

But seals

that are in vessels [

ropes tying the doors of vessels]—he

may untie

their knots,

and

even

undo and cut

the ropes, and he need not be concerned about the prohibition of demolition, since the category of the labor of demolition does not apply to vessels.

And

both Shabbat and the Festival

it is permitted to undo and cut seals in vessels, and it is forbidden to do so with seals on the ground.

He raised an objection

to Shmuel’s words, who forbids undoing and cutting seals on the ground even on the Festival:

For we learned in a beraita:

Seals that are on the ground—

he

may untie

on Shabbat,

but he may not undo or cut.

But

on the Festival he may untie, and

even

undo and cut.

And since tied seals do not involve a Torah prohibition of demolition, and only on Shabbat did the Sages stringently prohibit it, but not on the Festival, because of the joy of the Festival—for the needs of food were permitted on it—this is difficult for Shmuel, who forbade it on the Festival?!

And we answer:

This

—this beraita that permits undoing and cutting on the Festival—

who is it?—

It is Rabbi Meir, who says

in our Mishna:

He may even breach

a house made of stones arranged one on top of another

at the outset, and take

the produce.

And the Rabbis disagree with him,

as we learned in our Mishna according to the view of the first tanna.

And I who say this—

according to the Rabbis

I said it.

And we still raise an objection:

Do the Rabbis disagree with him,

Rabbi Meir,

with regard to seals that are on the ground,

and forbid demolishing them on the Festival?!

But it was taught: The Sages concede [

who said in our Mishna that it is forbidden to breach a house made of arranged bricks]

to Rabbi Meir

who permitted demolition in their case,

with regard to seals that are on the ground: On Shabbat he may untie, but he may not undo or cut,

whereas

on the Festival he may untie, and

even

undo and cut?!

We have learned that even according to the Sages it is permitted on the Festival, unlike Shmuel?