Shabbat 125a — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rav Pappa said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

if he threw it

for its lid [or for the shards of a barrel

before sunset into the refuse heap—

it is forbidden

to move the lid, because he thereby revealed his mind before Shabbat that he did not consider it a utensil [and since it was not prepared before sunset, one cannot compare it to a garment, which certainly does not lose its status as a utensil when he throws it into the refuse heap, because his opinion is nullified. Biur Halakha]].

Bar Hamduri said in the name of Shmuel: the scraps of a mat,

the remnants of an old mat that separated from it—

it is permitted to move them on Shabbat.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

But surely they have no use?

Rava said: Bar Hamduri explained

explained

to me:

For, indeed, a

mat

whole,

itself

in its own right—

what is it suitable for?

For covering dirt with it,

to cover excrement with it, or to place it on the floor so that dust will not rise. If so,

these

scraps of a mat

are also suitable,

they are suitable

for covering filth with them.

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav: remnants of prozumiyot

garments—it is forbidden to move them on Shabbat.

Abaye said:

the words of Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav were stated specifically

with regard to mitalniyot,

with regard to pieces of cloth

that do not have three

fingers

by three

fingers,

which are suitable neither for the poor nor for the wealthy.

And since they have no use at all, it is forbidden to move them. ,

The Sages taught: The shards of an “old

” oven [that has already been fired with its first firing], at which point its shards are suitable for use—

they are

on Shabbat, with regard to moving—

like all utensils that may be moved in the courtyard, the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They may not be moved.

And below it explains their dispute.

Rabbi Yose testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov concerning the shards of an old oven—

that they may be moved on Shabbat.

And

he likewise testified

concerning its cover

of the oven

that it need not

have a

handle,

a place of grasping, in order to permit moving it [and this is a dispute below, on page 126b].

And we explain:

With regard to what do

the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda disagree concerning moving shards of an oven?

Abaye said: They disagree

with regard to whether the shards of the oven perform

something resembling a function,

for example, that they are suitable for covering the mouth of a barrel,

but do not perform something resembling their function

the previous one, since they are no longer suitable for baking with them,

they disagree.

And Rabbi Yehuda follows his reasoning

in the Mishna, for he requires that they perform something resembling their function. Otherwise, it is forbidden to move them.

And Rabbi Meir,

who is the first anonymous authority of the Mishna, proceeds

according to his reasoning,

for he does not require that they perform something resembling their function.

Rava raised an objection to him,

to Abaye:

If so,

that they disagree concerning performing something resembling a function,

rather than disagreeing concerning the shards of

an oven, let them disagree concerning shards of utensils in general.

For that same dispute—when they do not perform something resembling their function and when they do perform something resembling a function—also applies to ordinary shards of utensils; why, then, did the tanna state their dispute with regard to shards of an oven?

Rather, Rava said: They disagree concerning the shards of this oven,

the one taught in the Mishna in Tractate Kelim,

they disagree.

Introduction to the discussion of shards of an oven:

A special innovation was stated in the Torah concerning the impurity of an oven, and concerning its purification.

An ordinary oven was made in the form of a large inverted bowl, with an opening above.

They would set the oven on the ground, and in the ground itself they would make something resembling a pit, in which they kindled the fire. They would attach the oven with mortar to the ground, so that the heat of the oven would be preserved and the heat would not escape through the crack between the oven and the ground.

It follows that the oven was the only utensil whose manner of use was specifically through its attachment to the ground.

But the ground itself, as well as everything attached to the ground, such as a building or a plant, does not contract impurity.

And seemingly, the oven attached to the ground with mortar should likewise have been pure and should not have contracted impurity because of its attachment to the ground.

Rather, the Torah introduced two innovations concerning an oven:

The first: it contracts impurity despite its being attached.

And the second: it contracts impurity

specifically

when it is attached.

And in explaining the matter, two explanations were stated in the words of the early and later authorities:

A. The Torah introduced a special innovation concerning an oven: it contracts impurity despite its being like the ground.

B. Since the oven is a thing in its own right and is merely attached to the ground with mortar, the Torah considered it like a movable utensil, and by virtue of its being a

movable utensil

it contracts impurity.

And a special law was likewise introduced concerning the purification of an oven [according to Rabbi Yehuda].

The purification of an oven is not accomplished by breaking it, like all utensils that are purified through breaking; rather, it is purified specifically through “demolition.” And the meaning of “demolition” applies only to something attached to the ground: the breaking that disconnects it from the ground constitutes demolition, but not with regard to something that is not attached, with regard to which only “breaking

” applies.

Therefore, if they broke an impure oven while the impure oven was disconnected from the ground, it does not leave its state of impurity, and its shards continue to be impure. For an oven has purification only through its demolition, and when it is disconnected from the ground, only breaking applies to it, not demolition.

And the tannaim disagreed in Tractate Kelim concerning an oven that was not repaired according to its law, meaning that they did not attach it properly to the ground with mortar, and impurity touched it, and it broke—what is the law of its impurity and what is the law of the purification of its shards?

For example, in a situation in which the oven was placed over the mouth of the pit, but they did not attach it with mortar to the ground; rather, they merely set it above the cavity of the pit [within which was the fire], and in order to hold it there they inserted a stone between the oven and the wall of the pit, to tighten and hold the oven in its place above the pit

they gave it

over the mouth of the pit, or over the mouth of the cistern [which resembles a pit, except that it is built above the ground],

[which resembles a pit, except that it is built above ground],

and placed a stone there,

inserting a thin stone between the oven and the wall of the pit, in order to set the oven above the pit, in which the fire is located.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If the walls of the oven are close to the wall of the pit and are tightened against it well by means of the stone that he inserted between them, so that

if

he

fires

and kindles the fire

below

in the pit,

and it,

the oven,

is heated,

becoming hot above, and the heat does not disperse outward—

it is impure.

For this oven contracts impurity, since the tightening of the oven to the pit beneath it is considered a suitable attachment of an oven to the ground, and it bears the designation “oven” for contracting the impurity of an oven.

But if not,

if the firing below is not effective in firing the oven, because the oven is distant from the wall of the pit, and rather he must fire the oven from above, inside the cavity of the oven—

the oven is pure

the oven.

And the reason for the matter is that it was introduced concerning an oven that it contracts impurity only if it is close to being considered attached to the ground, in which case I apply to it [with regard to its purification] “an oven and a stove shall be demolished.” But if it is not attached to the ground, it is already demolished, and certainly it does not contract impurity then, for whenever I do not apply to it “an oven and a stove shall be demolished,” I do not apply to it “they are impure

”. And the Sages say: Since

the oven

was fired in any event,

by the fire inside the cavity of the oven—

the oven is impure

the oven. It is sufficient for us that it is attached by means of inserting the stone between the oven and the pit, to consider the oven attached to the ground and to apply to it the designation “oven” for contracting impurity, despite its not being fired by the fire in the ground.

And we explain:

With regard to what do they disagree?

With regard to

the exposition of

this verse,

which is written in the portion of Shemini: “

And everything that falls from their carcass upon it”—

an oven and a stove shall be demolished.

They are impure, and they shall be impure for you.”

Rabbi Yehuda holds that only an oven that is

that only an oven that is

in need of demolition

becomes

impure.

And only if it is attached to the ground in a manner that allows it to be fired from the ground in the pit below is it considered an oven attached to the ground, and demolition applies to it; therefore, it is impure.

But an oven

that is not in need of demolition,

such as one that can be fired only inside it and not from the fire in the pit, because the wall of the oven is distant from the ground, is not considered attached to the ground, and demolition does not apply to it, since it is already demolished, and only breaking is possible with regard to it; therefore, it is

pure,

and it does not contract impurity.

And the Sages hold that since the Torah repeated itself and wrote, “They are impure, and

that since the Torah repeated the wording and wrote, “They are impure, and

they shall be impure for you,” it follows from the repetition of the wording that the verse came to say that even an oven that is not fully repaired, that is not attached firmly to the ground so that it can be fired from the fire in the pit, is nevertheless impure

it may be inferred from the repetition that the verse is saying that even an oven that is not fully prepared, one that is not firmly attached to the ground so that it can be heated by the fire in the pit, is nevertheless impure

in any event.

And we ask:

But the Sages also have, “it shall be demolished”!

For it implies that there must be a possibility of demolition, whereas an oven that is not attached to the ground as it should be cannot undergo demolition, but only breaking; it is already like a demolished object, and why is it impure!?

And we answer:

That “it shall be demolished” did not come to teach a leniency like Rabbi Yehuda, to say that if demolition does not apply to it because it is not completely attached, it is like a demolished object and therefore pure.

For the verse returns, after saying “They are impure,” and says again, “They shall be impure for you”—

For the verse returned, after saying “They are impure,” and said again, “They shall be impure for you”—in order to include it among those that contract impurity!

Rather,

to the contrary,

it comes to the opposite side, to teach stringency:

You might have thought

that impurity does not apply at all to an oven completely attached to the ground.

For it could have been said that

since he attached it

the oven

to the ground—

it is considered like the body of the ground,

and it is like the other things attached to the ground, whose law is like that of the ground and which do not contract impurity.

It teaches us

the verse “it shall be demolished” that even though it is attached, and demolition applies to it, nevertheless it is impure.

And all the more so where it is not completely attached and does not undergo demolition, but only breaking: it is impure.

And we ask:

But the other one,

Rabbi Yehuda,

also has, “they shall be impure for you”,

which implies like the Sages, that the Torah included that even an oven that is not attached and to which demolition does not apply is impure.

And we answer:

That

extra expression came to include

in accordance with what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

According to everyone, the oven does not contract impurity until after it has been fired with its first firing, at which point its work is completed and it acquires the designation of a utensil.

Rather, they disagree about which form of “first firing” is considered a firing that completes the work:

Whether specifically when they fired it while it was firmly attached to the pit, for only such a firing gives it the designation of a utensil, or even if the oven was fired with its first firing while disconnected from the ground, it acquires the designation of a utensil.

The dispute

between the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda is specifically

with regard to

the

first firing,

when this oven had never been fired, and the first firing completes the work of the oven and gives it the designation of a utensil; without it, it is not considered a utensil.

And concerning the first firing of the oven, whose work had not yet been completed except through this firing, Rabbi Yehuda said that if it is not attached to the ground according to its law at that time, it is not called fired with its first firing and is not yet fit to contract the impurity of an oven.

But with a second firing,

when the oven had already been fired with its first firing while it was properly attached to the ground, and afterward they removed it from there and set it upon the pit without the attachment prescribed for an oven, and here it became impure, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it contracts impurity.

For from now on, after the designation of a utensil took effect upon it through the first firing,

even

if they removed it from its place of attachment to the ground [whole, without breaking it], and the impure oven was now hanging whole

on a camel’s neck,

meaning that they disconnected it entirely from the ground, it continues to be impure until he breaks its shards.

And removing it whole from its place of attachment to the ground does not make this count as demolition.

And this is what the additional expression in the verse, “and they shall be impure for you,” came to teach.

Ulla said: And concerning the first firing, according to the Sages,

who hold that the verse came to include that it gives the oven the designation of a utensil even if it is not attached to the ground, do not say that the first firing is effective in giving it the designation of a utensil specifically if they placed it over the pit [but did not attach it firmly], and there they performed the first firing.

Rather,

even

if they performed the first firing of the oven when it was not attached to the ground at all, even when it was

hanging

then

on a camel’s neck,

and the first firing was performed there, the designation of a utensil takes effect upon it.

And concerning the shards of such an “old” oven, which had indeed already been fired, but had not yet undergone its first firing while attached to the ground, having only been fired while not firmly attached to the ground, and had not yet become a completely formed utensil—Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagreed concerning moving them on Shabbat.

Rav Ashi raised an objection to him: If so,

according to Rava, who established the dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as concerning the shards of an “old” oven, an oven such that even while whole, according to Rabbi Yehuda, it does not have the status of a utensil,

rather than disagreeing,

why did they need to establish their dispute

concerning shards of an oven?

Let them disagree concerning the oven

such as this

itself,

whether it is permitted to move it.

For

now, an oven

whole

itself, according to Rabbi Yehuda, was not a utensil,

since he does not consider it a utensil because it had not yet undergone its first firing properly.

Its shards

of that oven—

is it necessary

to say that they do not have the status of a utensil and that it is forbidden to move them?

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, as we said at first,

that their dispute concerns shards that perform something resembling a function but not something resembling their function, and the oven about which they spoke is an oven that had already been fired according to its law and whose work had been completed.

And as for what Rava asked: Why did they disagree concerning shards of an oven and not concerning shards of utensils?

Your answer is:

And when they perform the act of a tefeka,

being suitable for baking upon them, like baking upon fired roof tiles, the beraita is speaking. For it is speaking of broad shards, somewhat suitable for baking with them. However, they do not have an interior in which they can be fired from within, but only from outside, resembling roof tiles.

And Rabbi Meir—

spoke according to the words of Rabbi Yehuda:

And this is what he is saying:

In my view, even when they perform

these shards

something resembling a function,

it is also permitted to move them.

But according to you,

who hold that they must perform something resembling their function,

at least concede to me,

acknowledge to me at least,

that in such a manner,

which performs the act of a tefeka—something resembling

its function.

Even according to your words, it is permitted to move them.

And Rabbi Yehuda

held

that it is not similar

the function of these shards to the function of the oven.

For

there,

in the oven,

its firing

is

from within.

Whereas

here,

with the shards,

their firing is from outside.

And there is an additional distinction:

There,

in the oven, they bake the bread while it is

standing.

For the bread is not placed lying down, but is attached to the walls of the oven.

Whereas

here,

with the shards, it is

not standing.

Rather, the bread lies while it is being baked.

Therefore these shards are not called things that perform something resembling their function, and it is forbidden to move them.

We learned above:

Rabbi Yose testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov concerning the shards of an old oven, that they may be moved on Shabbat, and concerning its covers, that they do not require a handle

in order to move it.

Ravina said: In accordance with whom do we move nowadays

now the

cover of the ovens of Mata Meḥasya

[a place]

which have no handle?

In accordance with whom—

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

who holds that a handle is not required.

Mishna:

The stone that

is found

in

within

a gourd,

a hollow, dried gourd that they prepared for drawing water. And because the gourd is light and floats upon the surface of the water, they place a stone in it to weigh it down.

If one fills it,

this gourd with water,

and it does not

and the stone

fall

because it is tightly tied to the gourd—

one may fill it

with water on Shabbat, because the stone becomes part of the vessel, and the vessel is not then considered a base for muktzeh.

But if not,

the stone is not secured, but rather it can fall from it—

one may not fill it

with water on Shabbat, because it is forbidden to move the gourd vessel when the stone is inside it, since the stone is muktzeh, like other stones. And the gourd vessel becomes a base for the stone.