Beitzah 32a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

it is

Samuel, who forbids breaking open and cutting the seals in the ground even on Yom Tov—

for he holds like this tanna.

For it was taught

explicitly in accordance with his words:

With regard to seals in the ground: one may untie

their knots,

but one may not break them open or cut them—

whether on Shabbat or on Yom Tov.

And this is in accordance with Samuel.

And

seals

in a vessel: on Shabbat—

one may untie them, but one may not break them open or cut them.

But

on Yom Tov—

one may untie them, and

even

break them open and cut them.

And we still wonder about Samuel: Indeed,

you have resolved the first clause

of Samuel’s statement, with regard to seals in the ground, for his words accord with the words of the beraita.

But the latter clause

of Samuel’s statement, who said that with regard to seals in vessels one may break them open and cut them even on Shabbat—

it is difficult

from the beraita that we have just brought, for it is clear from it that on Shabbat it is forbidden to break open and cut even seals in vessels.

And we answer: It can always be reconciled with Samuel, for there is no prohibition of demolition with regard to seals in vessels, even on Shabbat. And the beraita that forbids doing this on Shabbat is not because of the prohibition of demolition; rather, it is because of the prohibition involved in moving the knife required for cutting, as will be explained immediately. But if he can break it open and detach it by hand, he may do so even according to the tanna of the beraita.

And

who is this

beraita that forbids moving the knife?—

It is Rabbi Nehemiah!

For Rabbi Nehemiah said:

Rabbi Nehemiah:

All vessels may not be moved

on Shabbat

except in the manner of their use.

Here, since the manner of using a knife is not to cut ropes with it, it is therefore forbidden to move it for this purpose.

And Samuel does not hold with regard to the law of moving objects in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah, and therefore Samuel permits it.

Here is the place to emphasize that Rabbi Nehemiah is not dealing at all with the fundamental question over which Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Judah differed: whether there is a law of muktzeh with regard to an object fit for use or eating that a person sets aside intentionally, or not. Rather, he holds that the decree enacted in the time of Nehemiah [Shabbat 123] concerning all vessels—not to move them because people treated the laws of carrying outside lightly—was subsequently relaxed only with regard to moving a vessel for its designated use, and no further.

But

if

this beraita

is according to Rabbi Nehemiah, and it was because of moving the knife that they forbade it on Shabbat—

and it was because of moving the knife that it prohibited this action on Shabbat,

why specifically

does the beraita speak only about

Shabbat?

After all, moving the knife on Yom Tov for a use other than its ordinary use, according to Rabbi Nehemiah, is—

also even on Yom Tov

forbidden?!

And if you would say

to reconcile it, that

it is different for him—

there is a distinction

for Rabbi Nehemiah between a “rabbinic prohibition”

of

Shabbat and a “rabbinic prohibition”

of

Yom Tov, and he forbade moving a vessel for a purpose other than its ordinary use only on Shabbat and not on Yom Tov—

so that he prohibited moving a vessel outside its ordinary use only on Shabbat and not on a Festival—

It is impossible to reconcile it in this manner!

And

for

is it different for him

—for Rabbi Nehemiah—to distinguish between moving on Shabbat and moving on Yom Tov?!

After all, from a resolution stated in the beit-midrash concerning the contradiction between the following three beraitot, one can learn that this is not so. For we learned three beraitot that apparently contradict one another:

a.

And did one beraita teach:

the beraita

one may stoke

the oven on Yom Tov

with vessels,

which are not muktzeh, since they are fit for use,

but one may not stoke

on Yom Tov

with fragments of vessels

that broke on Yom Tov.

Because in their new state as fragments of vessels, which came into being on Yom Tov, they have the status of nolad on Yom Tov, since originally, on the eve of Yom Tov, they were designated for use as a vessel, whereas now they are designated for use as a fragment of a vessel.

And because they are nolad, they are forbidden both to move and to use as fuel; even if he does not move them but burns them in their place, this is forbidden, since the prohibition of nolad also includes not making use of it. [But the Mishna Berura wrote that burning it in its place is considered moving it. See the introduction concerning use of muktzeh without moving it].

b.

And another beraita taught: one may stoke both with vessels and with fragments of vessels,

and we are not concerned because of muktzeh.

c.

And another beraita taught: one may stoke neither with vessels nor with fragments of vessels.

And he answered

and we resolved the contradiction between the three beraitot:

it is not difficult

to reconcile their contradiction. For:

a.

This—

the first beraita, which permits stoking with vessels and forbids it with fragments of vessels—

is Rabbi Judah,

who on the one hand holds of muktzeh, but on the other hand disagrees with Rabbi Nehemiah and permits moving a vessel even when it is not for its designated use.

Therefore, it is permitted to use a vessel as fuel and to move it even though this is not its designated use, for using vessels as fuel is not an ordinary use, nor is moving them for stoking an ordinary moving of vessels.

But one may not stoke with a fragment of a vessel that broke on Yom Tov, since it is forbidden to Rabbi Judah on account of nolad.

b.

This—

the second beraita, which permits stoking both with vessels and with fragments of vessels—

is Rabbi Shimon,

who does not hold of muktzeh. After all, this vessel was fit to be used as fuel both before it broke and after it broke. The entire prohibition of nolad results from the fact that the person intentionally set aside this vessel from use as fuel in the form of a fragment of a vessel, since he did not anticipate that the vessel would break on Yom Tov and that he would use it as a fragment of a vessel for stoking.

And according to Rabbi Shimon, the setting aside by which a person intentionally set aside the use of this vessel for stoking in the form of a fragment of a vessel does not forbid it, since his setting aside is not absolute, for he knows that perhaps the vessel will break on Yom Tov and he will be able to use it as a fragment of a vessel for stoking.

c.

This—

the third beraita, which forbids stoking both with vessels and with fragments of vessels—

is Rabbi Nehemiah,

who forbids moving a vessel when it is not for its designated use, and all the more so forbids moving fragments of vessels that broke on Yom Tov because of nolad, since this was not the manner in which the vessel was moved when it was whole.

We have therefore learned from here that Rabbi Nehemiah forbids moving a vessel when it is not for its designated use even on Yom Tov! And one cannot give the proposed answer that there is a distinction between Shabbat and Yom Tov.

For the beraita that forbids stoking with vessels must necessarily be speaking about Yom Tov, when stoking is permitted?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

The beraita that forbids cutting seals with a knife on Shabbat is indeed according to Rabbi Nehemiah; but this tanna holds that Rabbi Nehemiah forbade moving a vessel for a purpose other than its designated use only on Shabbat, and not on Yom Tov.

And what we demonstrated from the resolution of the beraitot—that according to Rabbi Nehemiah this prohibition applies also on Yom Tov—is the view of another tanna concerning Rabbi Nehemiah.

For the two beraitot that disagree in the matter of Rabbi Nehemiah, whether he forbade this also on Yom Tov—

they are two tannaim,

and

they

disagreed about the matter

according to Rabbi Nehemiah.

Mishna:

The “lamp” in the time of the Mishna was made as follows: the maker of the lamps would knead earth and make it into small, round, flat lumps, called in the language of the Talmud “eggs.”

Afterward, he would take the “eggs” one by one, insert his fist into them, and make an indentation across the entire surface of each circle, until it assumed the form of a “lamp.”

Afterward, they would fire the lamp in a kiln, and then it would become a vessel in which to light, by means of oil and a wick placed inside it [Meiri].

One may not make

on Yom Tov

the lamp smaller.

One may not hollow out the potter’s egg to make it into the form of a lamp, even if he does not fire it in a kiln,

because he is thereby making

a

vessel. [And it is forbidden either because of the labor of striking the final blow or because of the labor of building].

And it is forbidden either because of the labor of completing a vessel or because of the labor of building].

And one may not make charcoal on Yom Tov.

One may not kindle wood until it becomes coals and extinguish it at this stage so that it will serve as charcoal. The reason for the prohibition is that the charcoal is considered a “vessel,” used by goldsmiths for their work.

And one may not cut the wick

that is long

into two

on Yom Tov.

It is unnecessary to say that one may not make the wick from the outset, since making a complete vessel is involved; rather, even if he made a long wick on the eve of Yom Tov, he may not cut it into two, for he is creating a vessel [Meiri].

Rabbi Judah says:

One may not cut the wick with a knife. But

he may cut it with fire,

burning it with fire at its middle, and it divides. Its reason will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may not make the lamp smaller. Because this is the making of a vessel.

And we explain:

Which tanna

is the one who holds

that

in

making a lamp smaller

alone,

a vessel [

vessel]

he is

making?

That is to say: Even a lamp that has been hollowed out, which has not yet been fired in a kiln, is considered a vessel?

Rav Yosef said: It is Rabbi Meir,

who considers it a vessel with regard to receiving impurity.

For it was taught: An earthenware vessel—

from when does it receive impurity?

Once its work is completed,

when it has been hollowed out, even though it has not yet been fired in a kiln,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Joshua says:

Only

from

the time

that it is fired in a kiln

does it receive impurity; but with hollowing alone it is not yet considered a vessel, and it is not fit to receive impurity.

We have therefore learned according to Rabbi Meir that hollowing alone makes a vessel, and the first tanna of our Mishna is also Rabbi Meir.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef, rejecting the comparison between other earthenware vessels and a lamp:

From where?

And from where do you know that according to Rabbi Meir even a lamp that has been hollowed out but has not been fired in a kiln is a vessel?!

But

perhaps Rabbi Meir said that only there,

that by hollowing alone it becomes a vessel,

but

with regard to other earthenware vessels in which a large hollowing has been made, since

they are fit to contain something,

they are fit even before being fired in a kiln to hold dry objects [for firing in a kiln is needed only for vessels made to hold moist objects], and therefore they are vessels.

But here,

in our Mishna, which speaks of a lamp whose receptacle is small, whenever it is not fired in a kiln and is not fit to have oil placed in it—

what is it fit for [

for what use is it fit]?! Since it is fit for no use, it is not a vessel.

And we answer: Even a lamp that has been hollowed out is fit

to contain small coins [

to place money in it].

There are those who say that Rav Yosef said:

The tanna of our Mishna, who holds that even a lamp containing only a hollowing is a vessel—

it is Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok.

For we learned: Earthenware bowls [

flat lumps of clay made in the measure of bowls [plates], except that they have not yet been hollowed out or fired in a kiln; and the inhabitants of the towns are not particular about attractive vessels, and use them as bowls in their present state], these are:

pure in a tent over a corpse,

since an earthenware vessel that has no interior does not receive impurity in a tent over a corpse.

and impure through the carrying of a person with a flux.

For if a person with a flux carries them, they become impure like other vessels that become impure through his carrying, since these too are vessels. [A special innovation did the Torah state concerning the impurity of a person with a flux: if he carries or shifts a vessel, even without touching it, the vessel becomes impure].

Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok says: They are also pure through the carrying of a person with a flux, since their work has not been completed.

Necessarily, the reason of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok is only that they have not yet been hollowed out; but if they have been hollowed out, even though they have not been fired in a kiln, they are vessels. For if not, why did they disagree concerning earthenware bowls that have no interior? They should have disagreed concerning hollowed-out vessels that have not yet been fired in a kiln.

And our Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok.

Abaye said to him

to reject the comparison from bowls to a lamp:

Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Tzadok said that only there,

with regard to hollowed-out bowls,

but

because

they are fit to contain something, but here,

with regard to a lamp,

what is it fit for?!

And we answer: Even a lamp that has been hollowed out is fit

to contain small coins [

to put money in it].

The Sages taught: One may not make a lamp smaller, and one may not make earthenware bowls on Yom Tov,

because he is making a vessel.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits [making] earthenware bowls.

And we explain:

What are “bowls”?

Rav Judah said: “Arniyot,”

as he proceeds to explain.

What are “arniyot”?

Abaye said: the bowls of the villagers [

the bowls of the inhabitants of the towns], as has been explained.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may not make charcoal

on Yom Tov:

And we wonder: After all,

it is obvious

that one may not make it on Yom Tov! For

what is it fit for

—what Yom Tov need is there for it?!

Rabbi Hiyya taught: It was necessary only

to forbid making charcoal in order

to give it to the bath attendants [

those who heat hot water and bathhouses]

on that very day.

And the Mishna teaches us that it is forbidden to make it even for a need of Yom Tov.

The Gemara wonders about this answer:

And on that very day—

is it permitted?!

That is to say: Is there any permitted use for charcoal on that very day?! After all, even heating water for bathing is forbidden, for they forbade bathing in hot water on Yom Tov, even if it was heated before the day began; and all the more so, heating hot water on Yom Tov for bathing, which was never permitted.

If so, the question returns: It is obvious?! And we answer:

As Rava said: To sweat, and before the decree.

Here too,

there is a need for charcoal in order

to sweat

by means of it: one brings charcoal into the bathhouse to heat it, and people enter there in order to sweat.

And

although they decreed against sweating, one must explain that our Mishna was taught

before the decree.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may not cut the wick into two,

Rabbi Judah says: He may cut it with fire:

And the Gemara wonders about Rabbi Judah’s method, which distinguishes between cutting with a knife and cutting with fire: