Shabbat 122b — the Talmud in English

And we resolve:

there too, when they light

the gentile - ")

they light with regard to the majority.

And it is found that the gentile lit for the sake of a Jew.

And when it is half and half, the matter is uncertain for whose sake he lit.

But a gentile who was together with a Jew, and the gentile lit for his own need—behold, the principal purpose of his lighting is for himself, even though he knew that there was a Jew here and knew that he too would benefit from the light. For concerning such a case we say, “A lamp for one is a lamp for a hundred,” since he does not increase his lighting for the sake of the Jew.

Shmuel happened to arrive at the house of Avin Toran [namely, a place].

(a place name).

A certain gentile came and lit a lamp.

He turned

around

Shmuel 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—

it was with regard to himself that he lit.

He then turned his face toward the lamp.

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

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

Mishna:

1.

All the utensils

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

taken,

it is permitted to move them

on Shabbat, and

also

their doors

are taken

with them, even though they became detached

from the utensils on Shabbat.

For

they

are not similar

to the doors of utensils that became detached,

to the doors of a house

that became detached, for those are forbidden to move once they have become detached.

Since

the doors of a house

are not “prepared”

for moving, because they do not have the status of a utensil, neither before they became detached from the house nor after they became detached from it.

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

2.

A person may take

on Shabbat:

A hammer,

a hammer, – in order

to crack

to crack

nuts with it.

An axe –

to cut

with it on Shabbat

the dried fig-cake [

a group of dried figs that are stuck together].

A saw,

like a saw, which cuts thick things well –

to saw

to cut

the cheese with it.

A rake –

to rake the dried figs with it,

the dried figs from the barrels.

And the shovel and the fork,

intended for turning the straw, –

to place food on it,

and to feed the food by means of it

to a

child

[who is] small.

The spindle and the shuttle,

thin tools of spinning and weaving –

to insert with it,

to insert them into soft fruits and eat them.

A needle

small

of the hand,

intended for sewing garments –

to remove with it the thorn

that became embedded in his flesh.

And

a large needle

for sacks,

with which sacks are sewn – in order

to open the door with it.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

All the utensils may be moved, and even though they became detached on Shabbat,

their doors are permitted to be moved.

It 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 moved.

And it is not necessary to say,

and all the more so, if the doors became detached

on

a

weekday,

before Shabbat, that it is obvious that it is permitted to move them.

And we raised it: But

on the contrary!

Specifically if they became detached

on Shabbat

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

prepared by virtue of their fathers,

for at that time they were part of the utensil and fit to be moved.

But if they broke

on a weekday,

then

they are not

them

“prepared” by virtue of their fathers

at the onset of Shabbat, and there would be reason to forbid moving them!

If so, the Mishna should have written: “Even though they became detached on a weekday”?

And we answered:

Abaye said: This is what he is saying: All the utensils may be moved on Shabbat, and their doors

may be moved

with them –

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

them

on Shabbat. [

And it is not necessary when they are attached, for it is permitted to move them.]

And the novelty of the Mishna is only that even if the doors became detached, it is permitted to move them.

The Sages taught: The doors

of

a chest, a box, and a tower [

which are not attached to the ground],

may be taken,

they may be detached from their attachment on Shabbat.

But they may not be replaced

in the place of their attachment!

And

the doors

of a chicken coop –

may not be taken

from their place of attachment,

and may not be replaced

in their place.

And we raised it:

Granted,

the doors

of a chicken coop

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

he holds

this tanna of the beraita, that

since

the doors of the coop

are attached in the ground,

in the ground, then

there is building in the ground,

and therefore it is forbidden to replace the doors.

And likewise

there is demolition in the ground,

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

But the doors

of

a chest, a box, and a tower,

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

What does he hold,

the tanna of the beraita, who permitted taking the doors but forbade replacing them?

If he holds that there is

a prohibition of

building in utensils,

then the return of the doors is considered building, and therefore it is forbidden.

If so,

there is

also a prohibition of

demolition in utensils,

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

And if

he holds

there is no demolition in utensils,

and therefore it is permitted to take them, if so, there is also

no building in utensils,

and it should be permitted to replace them?

And we answered:

Abaye said: In fact, he holds

the tanna of the beraita that

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

And that which is written in the beraita,

“may be taken”

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

“and

the doors

that were taken,” he said. For if the doors of the utensils were taken, whether through a prohibition, or by themselves, or by a gentile, it is forbidden to replace them.

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 said!

One: “may be taken,” it teaches

in the beraita, and it implies that it is permitted to take them initially; the beraita is not speaking of doors that were taken after the fact.

And furthermore,

since one may not take them initially –

what

is this that it teaches,

“but they may not be replaced”?

If one may not take them, how does the beraita speak of replacing them?

And we answered:

Rather, Rava said:

In fact,

he holds

that the tanna holds that

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

And

what is the reason that it teaches, “but they may not be replaced”?

It is a decree lest he hammer them in

the doors forcefully. And even though it is not then forbidden on account of building, nevertheless it is forbidden on account of repairing the box and the chest. And 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

of

permitted use, for cracking

nuts –

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

But

a hammer

of smiths,

whose principal purpose is for prohibited labor –

not

may they move it.

For

he holds

the tanna of the Mishna:

an object whose labor is for a prohibition –

even for the sake of its body,

even for a permitted use,

it is forbidden

to move it. And all the more so when he does not need the utensil for its use, but wants to clear the place of the utensil, that it is forbidden to move it.

Rabba said to Rav Yehuda:

to Rav Yehuda:

If so,

since you established that the Mishna speaks specifically of a utensil whose labor is for a permitted use, then the

conclusion

of the Mishna,

which teaches

in it

“and the shovel and the fork, to place food on it for the small child.”

But are a

shovel and fork,

intended for turning straw on the threshing floor,

designated for it,

are they designated

to

feed a child with them

who is small?!

Rather, certainly the Mishna is speaking of utensils whose labor is for a prohibition.

Rather, Rabba said:

Our Mishna permits moving even

a hammer of smiths,

in order

to crack nuts with it.