Shabbat 122b (קכב:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Even there, when the gentile kindles it,

the gentile—

kindles it with the majority in mind.

And it follows that the gentile kindled it for the Jew’s needs.

And when it is half and half, it is uncertain for whose needs he kindled it.

But when a gentile was together with a Jew, and the gentile kindled it for his own needs, the primary purpose of his kindling was for himself, even though he knew that a Jew was present and knew that the Jew, too, would benefit from the light. For in such a case we say: “A lamp for one is a lamp for a hundred,” since he does not increase his kindling for the Jew’s needs.

Shmuel happened to come to Bei Avin Turan

(a place name).

A certain gentile came and kindled a lamp.

He turned

turned

his face

his face away from the light.

When he saw

Shmuel

that he had brought

that the gentile had brought

a document and was reading

from it,

he said

Shmuel: That gentile

kindled it for his own needs.

He himself then turned his face toward the lamp.

Shmuel then turned his face toward the light of the lamp.

We will return to you, chapter “All the Writings.”

Mishna:

1.

All utensils

that have doors attached to them, such as chests, are

permitted to be carried,

it is permitted to move them

on Shabbat, and

also

their doors

may be carried

with them, even though they have become detached

from the utensils on Shabbat.

For

they

are not comparable

to the doors of utensils that have become detached

to the doors of a house

that have become detached, which are forbidden to move once they have become detached.

Because

the doors of a house

are not “prepared”

for carrying, since they do not have the status of a utensil, neither before they become detached from the house nor after they become detached from it.

Therefore, when they become detached, it is forbidden to carry them. This is not so with the doors of utensils, which were prepared to be carried at the onset of Shabbat “by virtue of their parent,” as will be explained in the Gemara.

b.

A person may take

on Shabbat:

a hammer,

a hammer, in order

to crack

to break open

nuts with it.

An axe -

to cut

with it on Shabbat

a cake of dried figs

[a group of dried figs pressed together].

A saw,

like a saw, which cuts thick things well -

to saw

to cut

cheese with it.

A rake -

to rake the dried figs with it.

The dried figs from the barrels.

And the winnowing shovel and the pitchfork,

intended for turning over straw -

to place food on it,

and to feed food with it

to

a

small child.

The spindle and the shuttle,

thin tools for spinning and weaving -

to insert with it

to insert them into soft fruit and eat them.

A needle

small

of the hand,

intended for sewing garments -

to remove with it a thorn

that became embedded in his flesh.

And

a large needle

for sacks,

with which sacks are sewn - in order

to open a door with it.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

All utensils may be carried, even though they became detached on Shabbat

; their doors are permitted to be carried.

It might have entered our minds that this is what the tanna of the Mishna said: Even though the doors became detached from the utensils on Shabbat itself, they are permitted to be carried.

And it is not necessary

, and all the more so, if the doors became detached

on

a

weekday,

before Shabbat, it is obvious that they may be carried.

We raised an objection: But

on the contrary!

It is specifically if they became detached

on Shabbat

that we should permit carrying them, since at the onset of Shabbat they were

prepared by virtue of their parent,

as they were then part of the utensil and fit to be carried.

But if they broke

on a weekday,

then

they are not

“prepared”

“prepared by virtue of their parent”

at the onset of Shabbat, and there would be reason to prohibit carrying them!

And if so, the Mishna should have stated: “Even though they became detached on a weekday”?

And we answered:

Abaye said: This is what it means: All utensils may be carried on Shabbat, and their doors

may be carried

with them -

even though they became detached on a weekday, they may be carried

by them

on Shabbat.

[And it is certainly permitted when they are attached.]

The Mishna’s novelty is only that even if the doors became detached, it is permitted to carry them.

The Sages taught: The doors

of

of a chest, a box, or a cabinet

[which are not attached to the ground],

may be removed,

that is, they may be dismantled from their attachment on Shabbat.

But they may not be replaced

in their place of attachment!

And

the doors

of a chicken coop -

may not be removed

from their place of attachment,

nor may they be replaced

in their place.

We raised an objection:

Granted, the doors

of a

chicken coop

that is attached to the ground: it is properly forbidden to remove and replace them, because

he holds

, this tanna of the beraita, that

since

the doors of the coop

are attached to the ground,

in the ground,

there is building in connection with the ground,

and therefore it is forbidden to replace the doors.

Likewise,

there is demolition in connection with the ground,

and therefore it is forbidden to remove the doors from their attachment to the ground.

But, the doors

of

a chest, a box, or a cabinet,

why should it be permitted to remove them from their place of attachment?

What does he hold

—the tanna of the beraita who permitted removing the doors but prohibited replacing them?

If he holds that there is

a prohibition of

building in utensils,

then replacing the doors is considered building, and is therefore forbidden.

If so,

there is

also a prohibition of

demolition in utensils,

so why is it permitted to remove them? Is this not a prohibition of demolishing?

And if

he holds that

there is no demolition in utensils,

and therefore it is permitted to remove them, then likewise

there is no building in utensils,

and it should be permitted to replace them.

And we answered:

Abaye said: Actually, he holds

that the tanna of the beraita holds that

there is building in utensils and there is demolition in utensils.

And what is written in the beraita,

“may be removed”

, does not mean that it is permitted to remove the doors of the utensils. Rather,

“and

doors

that were removed,” it says.

If the doors of the utensils were removed, whether unlawfully, on their own, or by a gentile, it is forbidden to replace them.

Rava said to him: I have two answers

to give you

concerning

this matter that you stated!

First, “may be removed,” it teaches

in the beraita, implying that it is initially permitted to remove them; the beraita is not speaking of doors that were removed after the fact.

Furthermore,

since they may not be removed initially -

what

is the meaning of what it teaches,

“but they may not be replaced”?

If they may not be removed, how can the beraita speak of replacing them?

And we answered:

Rather, Rava said:

Actually,

he holds

that the tanna holds that

there is no building in utensils and no demolition in utensils.

And

the reason it teaches, “but they may not be replaced,” is this:

It is a decree lest one fasten

the doors firmly. Even though at that point it is not forbidden on account of building, it is nevertheless forbidden on account of repairing the box or chest. The prohibition is on account of “striking with a hammer.”

We learned in the Mishna:

A person may take a hammer.

Rav Yehuda said:

Only

a hammer

intended for use

for

permitted purposes, for cracking

nuts -

it is permitted to take it in order to crack nuts with it.

But

a

blacksmith’s hammer,

whose principal use is for forbidden work -

not

may it be carried.

Because

he holds

, the tanna of our Mishna:

an object whose primary use is for a forbidden purpose -

even for its own use,

and even for a permitted use,

it is forbidden

to carry it. And all the more so when he does not need the utensil for its use, but merely wishes to clear its place, in which case it is forbidden to carry it.

Rabba said to Rav Yehuda

:

If that is so,

since you established that the Mishna is specifically speaking of an object whose primary use is permitted, then the

final clause

of our

Mishna, which teaches

in it

“and the winnowing shovel and the pitchfork, to place food on it for a small child.”

But

the winnowing shovel and pitchfork,

which are intended for turning straw in the threshing floor -

who designates them for it,

does he designate them

to

feed a

small child?!

Rather, certainly the Mishna is speaking of utensils whose primary use is for forbidden work.

Rather, Rabba said:

Our Mishna permits carrying even

a blacksmith’s hammer,

in order

to crack nuts with it.