Beitzah 33b (לג:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said:

the one who prepares

fodder for animals,

such as cutting straw or the leaves of reeds [which are fodder for animals] in order to pick his teeth with them—for with other wood, this would be considered preparing a utensil—

does not thereby violate the prohibition of preparing a utensil,

because anything fit for animal consumption is not deemed a utensil [Mishna Berura].

Rav Kahana raised an objection to Rav Yehuda

from that which was taught in a

beraita:

One may move fragrant wood

in order to smell it,

and in order

to fan with it

cool air

to a sick person.

And one may rub it

the branch of the fragrant tree between his fingers in order to release its scent,

and smell it.

But one may not cut it,

one may not cut it so that the place of the cutting will be moist and its scent will diffuse,

in order to smell it,

as a decree lest he cut it in order to pick his teeth with it, as doing so is prohibited by Torah law because he thereby makes it into a utensil.

And if he cut it

in order to smell it, he is

exempt,

since it is not prohibited by Torah law,

but it is prohibited

to do so by rabbinic ordinance.

But in order

But in order

to pick his teeth with it—

he may not cut it.

And if he cut it

on Shabbat in order to pick his teeth with it,

he is liable to bring a sin-offering,

because he makes it into a utensil.

But this is a difficulty for Rav Yehuda, for the

beraita speaks of fragrant wood, some of which is considered fodder for animals, and nevertheless one is liable for preparing it?!

He said to him, Rav Yehuda said to Rav Kahana:

Now,

even if you were to find a

beraita that stated only: “One who cuts fragrant wood in order to pick his teeth with it is

exempt but it is prohibited”—

it would be a difficulty for me!

Such a

beraita would refute my statement, since I permit doing so ab initio. Now that you have found a

beraita that states something even more opposed to my view, that he is

even

liable to bring a sin-offering—

and

is it necessary

to say that it refutes my statement?!

Rather,

I can explain that it is not a refutation of my statement at all!

When that was taught,

the

beraita you cited, which says that one who cuts fragrant wood is liable to bring a sin-offering—

it is speaking of

hard

fragrant wood, which is not fit for animal consumption. I, however, permitted cutting thin reed leaves or straw, which are soft and fit for animal consumption.

And we raise a difficulty: How could Rav Yehuda have established the

beraita, which speaks of rubbing fragrant wood, as referring to hard wood?

But is hard wood

fit to be rubbed?!

It would crumble when rubbed [Meiri]?!

It must be that the

beraita is discussing soft wood, which is fit to be rubbed and is suitable for animal consumption. The difficulty for Rav Yehuda therefore returns: Why is one liable to bring a sin-offering for cutting it?! And we answer: The

beraita is incomplete, and this is what it teaches

in it:

He may rub it and smell it.

And he may also

cut it and smell it,

or pick his teeth with it.

When are these words applicable,

that it is permitted to cut it?

With

wood that is

soft,

since it is fodder for animals.

But with

wood that is

hard,

which is not fit for animals—

he may not cut it

in order to smell it,

and if he cut it, he is exempt but it is prohibited.

But

to pick his teeth with it—

he may not cut it,

since hard wood is not animal fodder.

And if he cut it—he is

liable to bring a sin-offering.

The Gemara cites a contradiction between two

beraitot and resolves them on the basis of the distinction the Gemara stated: One

beraita teaches:

He may cut it and smell it.

And another

beraita was taught:

He may not cut it in order to smell it,

as a decree lest he cut it in order to pick his teeth with it.

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Ḥisda said: There is no difficulty—

This

statement, that one may cut it and smell it, applies

to

fragrant wood that is

soft,

fit for animal consumption; and fodder for animals is not subject to the prohibition of preparing a utensil.

That

statement, that one may not cut it, applies

to

fragrant wood that is

hard,

which is not fit for animal consumption.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov challenged this:

With

wood that is

hard —

why may he not

cut it in order to smell it? Do we issue a decree against one who cuts it without intending to make a utensil, because of one who cuts it intentionally in order to prepare a utensil?!

And

what is different from that which we learned: A person may break

a barrel on Shabbat,

the barrel, with a knife or sword, in order

to

eat from it

[from the barrel] the

dried figs

in the barrel, since there is no prohibition in such destructive action on Shabbat [Rashi, Shabbat].

Provided that he does not intend

by his action

to make a utensil,

that he does not intend to make a proper opening in it, with a fine opening [Rashi, Shabbat], since that would be preparing a utensil.

We learn from here that when his intention is not to make a utensil, the Sages did not issue a decree against it because of one who intends to do so?!

Furthermore,

there is a difficulty with our prohibition against cutting it in order to smell it:

Rava bar Rav Adda and Ravin bar Rav Adda both said:

When we were in the house of Rav Yehuda

[when we were in Rav Yehuda’s house],

he would break off branches for us and give us one branch after another,

[he would break branches from a detached tree and give us one branch at a time] in order to smell it [Tosafot], and

although they were fit

these branches

to make handles

[to make handles from them, handgrips]

for mattocks and axes,

since the branches were suitable for the handles of mattocks and axes.

Thus, they did not issue a decree prohibiting cutting off a branch in order to smell it because of cutting it in order to make a utensil from it.

And we answer:

There is no difficulty

with the statement of Rav Yehuda:

For

this

prohibition of cutting it in order to smell it as a precaution against cutting it to pick one’s teeth with it is the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds in the following

beraita that cutting for the purpose of making a utensil is considered preparation by Torah law. Whereas

that

statement of Rav Yehuda is according to

the Sages,

who hold in this

beraita that cutting is not considered preparation of a utensil by Torah law, because it is an indirect manner of preparation and is not proper preparation; therefore, they did not issue a decree regarding cutting it to smell it.

As it was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may take a splinter from

wood

that is before him

in order

to pick his teeth with it.

And the Sages say: He may take one only from an animal’s manger,

for wood was designated only for fuel, apart from something fit for human or animal consumption, which is prepared for every need.

And they agree,

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages,

that he may not cut it,

the splinter that he took from before him, because he is preparing a utensil [but if he took it from an animal’s manger, it is not prohibited to cut it, since it is fodder for animals, Shita Mekubetzet].

And if he cut it

in order

to pick his teeth with it, or

in order

to open a door

[for example, he cuts it in order to insert it between two doors to open the door, Meiri], if he did so:

Unintentionally on Shabbat—he is

liable to bring a sin-offering.

Intentionally on a Festival—he

receives forty lashes; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

And the Sages say: Both this,

Shabbat,

and that,

a Festival,

are not

prohibited by Torah law when he cuts it,

but only because of shevut,

since it is an indirect and imperfect form of preparation, unless he cuts it and smooths it with a knife.

The Gemara explains the resolution accordingly:

According to

Rabbi Eliezer, who says there

that if he cuts it in order to pick his teeth with it, he is

liable to bring a sin-offering,

since it is prohibited by Torah law—

here,

when he cuts it in order to smell it, he is

exempt but it is prohibited,

as a decree on account of cutting it to pick his teeth with it; and this is the

beraita cited above.

But according to the Sages, who say there

that if he cuts it in order to pick his teeth with it, he is

exempt but it is prohibited—

here,

when he cuts it in order to smell it, it is

permitted ab initio.

According to the Sages, even cutting off a branch in order to smell it is permitted, because even if he cuts it in order to make handles from it, according to the Sages he is exempt but it is prohibited; and this is the position of Rav Yehuda.

The second difficulty raised above is thus resolved. The first difficulty, from the Mishna concerning breaking a barrel, will be resolved by the Gemara’s answer to the following difficulty.

The Gemara questions Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling in the

beraita: And

if

Rabbi Eliezer does not hold

that one issues a decree against making a utensil unintentionally as a precaution against making a utensil intentionally, then what of

that which we learned: A person may break a barrel to eat dried figs from it, provided that he does not intend to make a utensil?

Thus, we do not issue such a decree, as we asked above?!

Rav Ashi said: When that was taught

the Mishna permitting one to break the barrel, it was

in the case of musetaki,

a defective barrel repaired with tree resin called “musetaki.” Since it is defective, we do not issue a decree lest he intend to make a utensil, because he will take care not to damage the barrel and will make at most a hole through which he can [Tosafot in their understanding of Rashi].

We learned in the Mishna:

And he may gather wood from the courtyard

and kindle it, since everything in the courtyard is prepared.

The Sages taught: He may gather wood from the courtyard and kindle it, since everything in the courtyard is prepared.

Provided that he does not make piles,

and the reason is explained by the Gemara shortly.

And Rabbi Shimon permits

even making piles.

The Gemara explains their dispute:

With regard to what do they disagree?

One—

the first tanna—

holds:

When he makes piles, it

appears that he is gathering it for tomorrow and for another day

[it appears that he is gathering it for tomorrow and another day], and therefore it is prohibited.

And the other—

Rabbi Shimon—

holds:

There is no concern that an observer will say that he is gathering it for tomorrow, because

his pot demonstrates his purpose,

as it is clear to everyone that he is gathering it for the pot and for the needs of the Festival day.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not produce fire

from wood

etc.:

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because he is “creating” fire on the Festival.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may not whiten roof tiles

in order to roast with them:

And we ask: What

does he do,

what prohibition is there in the matter?!