Beitzah 32a (לב.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

It is

Shmuel, who prohibits breaking open and cutting the seals attached to the ground even on Yom Tov—

as he follows this tanna.

As it was taught

explicitly in accordance with his words:

With regard to seals attached to 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 the words of Shmuel.

And

seals

attached to 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.

But we still question Shmuel: Granted,

you have explained the first clause

of Shmuel’s statement, concerning seals attached to the ground, saying that his ruling accords with the baraita.

But the latter clause

of Shmuel’s statement, in which he said that seals attached to vessels may be broken open and cut even on Shabbat,

is difficult

in light of the baraita we have just cited, for it is clear from the baraita that on Shabbat it is prohibited to break open and cut even seals attached to vessels.

And we answer: It is indeed possible to explain Shmuel’s ruling as stated, that there is no prohibition of demolition in breaking open seals attached to vessels, even on Shabbat. And the baraita that prohibits doing so on Shabbat does not do so because of the prohibition of demolition, but because of the prohibition against moving the knife required for cutting, as will be explained immediately. But if one can break and detach the seal by hand, he may do so even according to the tanna of the baraita.

And

who is the author

of this baraita, which prohibits moving the knife?

It is Rabbi Neḥemya!

As Rabbi Neḥemya said

:

All vessels may not be moved

on Shabbat

except in the manner of their designated use.

Here, however, cutting ropes is not the normal use of a knife, and therefore it is prohibited to move it for this purpose.

And Shmuel does not accept the law of moving objects in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya; therefore Shmuel permits it.

At this point it is important to emphasize that Rabbi Neḥemya is not addressing at all the fundamental question disputed by Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda—whether there is a law of muktzeh with regard to an item fit for use or consumption that a person mentally sets aside. Rather, he maintains that the decree enacted in the time of Neḥemya [Shabbat 123] concerning all vessels, prohibiting moving them because people had treated the laws of carrying lightly, was later relaxed only with regard to moving a vessel for its designated use, and no further.

But

if

this baraita is according to

Rabbi Neḥemya,

and it was moving the knife that led to the prohibition on Shabbat,

why specifically

does the baraita speak only about

Shabbat?

After all, moving a knife on Yom Tov for a purpose other than its ordinary use, according to Rabbi Neḥemya, is

also prohibited even on Yom Tov

!

And if you would say

in explanation that

it is different—

there is a distinction

for Rabbi Neḥemya between a rabbinic prohibition on Shabbat

and a rabbinic prohibition

on Yom Tov,

and he prohibited moving a vessel outside its ordinary use only on Shabbat and not on Yom Tov—

rabbinic restriction of a Festival,

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

It is impossible to explain it that way!

For

how could

it be different

for Rabbi Neḥemya, so that he would distinguish between moving an object on Shabbat and moving it on Yom Tov?

After all, from an explanation stated in the study hall concerning the contradiction between the following three baraitot, we can learn that this is not so. For we learned three baraitot that apparently contradict one another:

a.

And it was taught

in one

baraita: One may fuel

the oven on Yom Tov

with vessels,

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

but one may not fuel it

on Yom Tov

with pieces of vessels

that broke on Yom Tov.

This is because in their new state as pieces of vessels, which came about on Yom Tov, they have the status of nolad on Yom Tov. Initially, before Yom Tov, they were designated for use as a vessel, whereas now they are designated for use as a broken piece of a vessel.

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

b.

And it was taught in another baraita: One may fuel the oven both with vessels and with pieces of vessels,

and we are not concerned about muktzeh.

c.

And it was taught in another baraita: One may fuel the oven neither with vessels nor with pieces of vessels.

And he answered

and resolved the contradiction between the three baraitot:

They are not difficult

and do not contradict one another, because:

a.

This—

the first baraita, which permits using vessels as fuel but prohibits using pieces of vessels—

is Rabbi Yehuda,

who maintains, on the one hand, that there is muktzeh, but on the other hand disputes Rabbi Neḥemya and permits moving a vessel even when it is not being moved for its designated use.

Accordingly, it is permitted to fuel the oven with a vessel and to move it, even though this is not its designated use, since using a vessel as fuel is not its ordinary use and moving it for this purpose is not ordinary moving of vessels.

But one may not fuel the oven with a piece of a vessel that broke on Yom Tov, since according to Rabbi Yehuda it is prohibited on account of nolad.

b.

This—

the second baraita, which permits using both vessels and pieces of vessels as fuel—

is Rabbi Shimon,

who does not accept the principle of muktzeh. 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 a person mentally set aside the vessel from being used as fuel in its capacity as a broken vessel, since he did not anticipate that the vessel would break on Yom Tov and that it would be used as a broken vessel for fuel.

According to Rabbi Shimon, the mental designation by which a person set aside the use of this vessel as fuel in its capacity as a broken vessel does not prohibit it, since his setting aside of it was not absolute: He knows that the vessel might break on Yom Tov and that he might then use it as a broken vessel for fuel.

c.

This—

the third baraita, which prohibits using both vessels and pieces of vessels as fuel—

is Rabbi Neḥemya,

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

We learn from here that Rabbi Neḥemya prohibits moving a vessel outside its designated use even on Yom Tov! Therefore, the proposed resolution that there is a distinction between Shabbat and Yom Tov cannot be offered.

For the baraita that prohibits using vessels as fuel must necessarily be speaking about Yom Tov, when using them as fuel is permitted?!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

The baraita that prohibits cutting seals with a knife on Shabbat is indeed according to Rabbi Neḥemya. However, this tanna maintains that Rabbi Neḥemya prohibited moving a vessel outside its designated use only on Shabbat, and not on Yom Tov.

And the conclusion drawn from the resolution of the baraitot—that according to Rabbi Neḥemya this prohibition applies also on Yom Tov—reflects the view of a different tanna concerning Rabbi Neḥemya.

For the two baraitot that disagree concerning whether Rabbi Neḥemya prohibited this even on Yom Tov—

they are two tannaim,

and

they

disagree on this matter

according to Rabbi Neḥemya.

Mishna:

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

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

Afterward, the lamp was fired in a kiln, at which point it became a vessel in which to kindle a flame, using oil and a wick placed inside it [Meiri].

One may not make

on Yom Tov

the lamp.

One may not hollow out the potter’s egg to give it the shape of a lamp, even if one does not fire it in a kiln,

because he thereby makes

it into a

vessel. [And this is prohibited 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 burn wood until it becomes coal and extinguish it at that stage so that it can serve as charcoal. The reason for the prohibition is that charcoal is considered a “vessel,” used by goldsmiths in their work.

And one may not cut the wick

that is long

in two

on Yom Tov.

It goes without saying that one may not make the wick from the outset, since that would constitute making a complete vessel. Rather, even if one made a long wick before Yom Tov, he may not cut it in two, since he thereby creates a vessel [Meiri].

Rabbi Yehuda says:

One may not cut the wick with a knife. But

he may cut it with fire,

by burning it with fire at its midpoint, causing it to divide. The reason for this will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may not make the lamp, because making it constitutes making a vessel.

And we explain:

Who is the tanna

who maintains

that

in

making a lamp

alone,

a vessel [a

vessel]

he

makes?

In other words: Does even a hollowed-out lamp that has not yet been fired in a kiln have the status of a vessel?

Rav Yosef said: It is Rabbi Meir,

who considers it a vessel with regard to susceptibility to ritual impurity.

As it was taught: An earthenware vessel—

from when does it become susceptible to ritual impurity?

Once its work has been completed,

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

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

Only

from

the time

that it has been fired in a kiln

does it become susceptible to ritual impurity. But hollowing it out alone does not yet give it the status of a vessel, and it is not fit to become susceptible to impurity.

We have thus learned that according to Rabbi Meir, hollowing it out alone makes it a vessel, and the first tanna of our Mishna is likewise Rabbi Meir.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef,

rejecting the comparison between other earthenware vessels and a lamp:

From where

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

After all,

perhaps Rabbi Meir said this only there,

that hollowing alone makes it a vessel,

but

with regard to other earthenware vessels, in which one makes a substantial hollow, since

they are fit to hold something,

they are fit, even before being fired in a kiln, to hold dry items [for firing in a kiln is necessary only for vessels intended to hold moist items]. Therefore, they have the status of vessels.

But here,

in our Mishna, which speaks of a lamp whose receptacle is small, as long as it has not been fired in a kiln and is not fit to hold oil,

what is it fit for [for what use is it fit]?! Since it is not fit for any use, it does not have the status of a vessel.

what purpose is it fit for]? Since it is not fit for any use, it does not have the status of a vessel.

And we answer: Even a hollowed-out lamp is fit

to hold coins [to place money in it].

to place money in it].

Some say that Rav Yosef said:

The tanna of our Mishna, who maintains that even a lamp that has only been hollowed out is a vessel,

is Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok.

As we learned: Flat 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; the townspeople are not particular about attractive vessels and use them as bowls as they are], these are:

flat lumps of clay made in the size of bowls [plates], except that they have not yet been engraved or fired in a kiln; the people of the towns were not particular about attractive vessels and used them as bowls in this state]—these are:

pure in a tent over a corpse,

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

And impure through the burden of a zav.

If a zav carried them, they become impure like other vessels that become impure through his burden, for these too are vessels. [The Torah introduced a special provision concerning the impurity of a zav: if he carries or shifts a vessel, even without touching it, the vessel becomes impure].

Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok says: They are also pure through the burden of a zav, because their manufacture has not been completed.

Necessarily, the reason of Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok is only that they have not yet been hollowed out; but if they had been hollowed out, then even without being fired in a kiln they would be vessels. For otherwise, why did they dispute the matter specifically with regard to flat bowls that have no interior? They should have disputed it with regard to hollowed-out vessels that had not yet been fired in a kiln.

And our Mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok.

Abaye said to him,

rejecting the comparison between bowls and a lamp:

Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer bar Rabbi Tzadok said this only there,

with regard to hollowed-out bowls,

but

because

they are fit to hold something, but here,

with regard to a lamp,

what is it fit for?!

And we answer: Even a hollowed-out lamp is fit

to hold coins [to put money in it].

to place money in it].

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

because he thereby makes a vessel.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits making flat earthenware bowls.

And we explain:

What are “ḥarnayot”?

Rav Yehuda said: “arnayot,”

as he proceeds to explain.

What are “arnayot”?

Abaye said: Rural bowls [the bowls of the townspeople], as explained above.

the bowls of the townspeople], as explained.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may not make charcoal

on Yom Tov:

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: Surely

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 Ḥiyya taught: It was necessary only

to prohibit making charcoal in order

to give it to bath attendants [those who heat hot water and bathhouses]

those who heat hot water and bathhouses]

on that very day.

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

The Gemara challenges this resolution:

“On that very day”—

is it permitted?!

In other words: Is there any permitted use for charcoal on that very day? After all, even heating water for bathing is prohibited, since bathing in hot water was prohibited on Yom Tov even if the water had been heated before Yom Tov; all the more so, it is certainly prohibited to heat hot water on Yom Tov for bathing, as this was never permitted.

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

As Rava said: For sweating, and before the decree.

Here too,

there is a need for charcoal in order

to sweat

through its use: One places charcoal in the bathhouse to heat it, and people enter in order to sweat.

And

although a decree was enacted against sweating, we must explain that our Mishna was taught

before the decree.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may not cut the wick in two,

Rabbi Yehuda says: One may cut it with fire:

The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning Rabbi Yehuda’s view, which distinguishes between cutting with a knife and cutting with fire: