Shabbat 125a (קכה.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rav Pappa said:

if he threw it

onto the refuse heap before Shabbat

for its cover—

it is forbidden

to move the cover, because he revealed his דעת before Shabbat that he did not consider it a utensil. And since it was not prepared before Shabbat, it cannot be compared to a garment, for when one throws a garment onto a refuse heap its status as a utensil certainly does not lapse, because this is merely an instance of his דעת being disregarded. Bi'ur Halakha].

Bar Hamduri said that Shmuel said: The scraps of a mat,

the remnants of an old mat that have separated from it,

may be moved on Shabbat.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

But do they have any use?

Rava said: Bar Hamduri explained

to me

as follows:

For

a mat

that is whole

itself

—

what use is it fit for?

To cover earth with it,

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

these

scraps of a mat

are also fit,

they are suitable

for covering filth with them.

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: The remnants of worn garments,

garments—are forbidden to move them on Shabbat.

Abaye said:

The statement of Rabbi Zeira who said that Rav said was said specifically

with regard to scraps,

pieces of cloth

that are not three

fingerbreadths

by three

fingerbreadths,

as they are fit neither for the poor nor for the wealthy.

Since they have no use whatsoever, it is forbidden to move them. ,

The Sages taught: The shards of an “old oven”,

which has already undergone its first firing, at which point its shards are fit for use,

they are

on Shabbat, with regard to moving,

like all utensils that may be moved in a courtyard; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says: They may not be moved.

The Gemara will explain their dispute below.

Rabbi Yosei 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

with regard to its cover,

the oven’s,

that it need not

have

a handle,

a place to grasp it, in order for it to be permitted to move 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 the shards of an oven?

Abaye said: They disagree

with regard to whether the shards of the oven

perform a function resembling a function,

for example, when they are fit to cover the opening of a barrel,

but do not perform a function resembling their original function,

as they are no longer fit for baking with them;

they disagree.

And Rabbi Yehuda follows his own reasoning

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

And Rabbi Meir,

who is the first tanna of the Mishna, proceeds

according to his reasoning,

that it is not necessary for them to perform a function resembling their original function.

Rava raised an objection to him,

to Abaye:

If so,

that they disagree over objects that perform a function resembling a function,

rather than disagreeing over shards of

an oven, let them disagree over ordinary shards of utensils.

The dispute between objects that do not perform a function resembling their original function and those that do perform a function resembling a function applies equally to ordinary shards of utensils, so why did the tanna state their dispute with regard to shards of an oven?

Rather, Rava said: They disagree with regard to the shards of this oven,

the one taught in the Mishna in tractate Kelim,

they disagree.

Introduction to the discussion of the shards of an oven:

A special innovation is stated in the Torah with regard to the ritual impurity of an oven and with regard to its purification.

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

The oven was placed on the ground, and in the ground itself they made something resembling a pit, in which they kindled the fire. They attached the oven to the ground with mortar, so that the heat of the oven would be retained and would not escape through the gap between the oven and the ground.

It follows that the oven was the only utensil whose normal 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 ritual impurity.

Apparently, then, 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 with regard to an oven:

First, it contracts impurity despite being attached to the ground.

Second, it contracts impurity

specifically

when it is attached to the ground.

Two explanations of this matter are given in the words of the Rishonim and Aharonim:

a. The Torah introduced a special innovation with regard to an oven: it contracts impurity despite being comparable to the ground.

b. Since the oven is an entity in its own right and is merely attached to the ground with mortar, the Torah considers it like a movable utensil, and by virtue of its being

a movable utensil

it becomes impure.

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

The purification of an oven is not effected by breaking it, as with all utensils that are purified through breakage; rather, it is purified specifically through “demolition.” The meaning of “demolition” applies only to an object attached to the ground: the breakage that detaches it from the ground constitutes demolition, whereas in an object that is not attached, only “breakage” applies.

Therefore, if an impure oven was broken while the impure oven was detached from the ground, it does not immediately leave its state of impurity, and its shards remain impure. For an oven is purified only through its demolition, and when it is detached from the ground only breakage, not demolition, applies to it.

The tannaim disputed the status of an oven in tractate Kelim when it was not properly prepared, meaning that it was not properly attached 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 case where the oven was placed over the opening of the pit but was not attached to the ground with mortar; rather, it was merely positioned above the cavity of the pit [within which the fire was burning]. In order to hold it there, they wedged a stone between the oven and the wall of the pit, to tighten and support the oven in its place above the pit.

As we learned: If one placed

the oven

over the opening of the pit or over the opening of the cistern

which is similar to a pit, except that it is built above ground,

and placed a stone there,

meaning that he wedged a thin stone between the oven and the wall of the pit in order to seat the oven above the pit, where the fire is located.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

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

if

he

fires

and kindles the fire

below

in the pit,

and it,

the oven,

is heated,

becoming hot above, while 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 an adequate attachment of an oven to the ground, and it bears the status of an “oven” for purposes of contracting the impurity of an oven.

And if not,

if the firing below is not effective in heating the oven, because the oven is too far from the wall of the pit, and it must instead be fired from above, within the cavity of the oven,

the oven is pure

the oven.

The reason is that it was introduced as a law 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] the verse, “An oven or a hearth 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 or a hearth 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 within the cavity of the oven,

the oven is impure.

It is sufficient that it is attached by means of the stone wedged between the oven and the pit to consider the oven attached to the ground and to confer upon it the status of an oven for purposes of contracting impurity, despite the fact that it is not 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 Parashat Shemini: “

And whatever falls from their carcass upon it”—

an oven or a hearth shall be demolished.

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

Rabbi Yehuda holds

that only an oven that is

in need of demolition

becomes

impure.

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, so that demolition applies to it, and therefore it is impure.

But an oven

that is not in need of demolition,

for example, one that can be fired only inside it and not by 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 as though it is already demolished; only breakage can apply to it. Therefore it is

pure,

and it does not contract impurity.

And the Sages hold

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

they shall be impure for you,”

we learn from the repetition that the verse comes to say that even an oven that is not fully prepared, that is not firmly attached to the ground so that it could be fired from the fire in the pit, is nevertheless impure

in any event.

And we challenge:

But the Sages also have the wording “shall be demolished”!

This implies that demolition must be possible for it, whereas an oven that is not properly attached to the ground cannot undergo demolition, only breakage, and is considered already demolished; so why is it impure?

And we answer:

That “shall be demolished” does not come to teach a leniency, as Rabbi Yehuda holds, namely, that if demolition does not apply to it because it is not completely attached, it is considered demolished and is therefore pure.

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

in order to include it within the law of impurity!

Rather,

to the contrary,

it comes to teach a stringency:

It might have entered your mind to say

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

For one might have said that

since he attached it

the oven

to the ground, it is

like the body of the ground,

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

The verse therefore teaches us

through the words “shall be demolished” that although it is attached, and demolition applies to it, it is nevertheless impure.

All the more so, where it is not completely attached and only breakage, not demolition, applies to it, is it impure.

And we challenge:

And the other one,

Rabbi Yehuda,

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

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

And we answer:

That

repetition comes to include

the teaching of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel.

For Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

According to everyone, an oven becomes impure only after it has undergone its first firing, at which point its construction is complete and it acquires the status of a utensil.

Rather, they disagree over which form of “first firing” is considered the firing that completes its construction:

Is this specifically when it was fired while firmly attached to the pit, for only such firing gives it the status of a utensil, or does the oven acquire the status of a utensil even if its first firing took place while it was detached from the ground?

The dispute

between the Sages and Rabbi Yehuda is specifically

with regard to

the

first firing,

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

With regard to the oven’s first firing, through which its construction is completed, Rabbi Yehuda said that if it is not properly attached to the ground at that time, it is not considered to have undergone 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 undergone its first firing while properly attached to the ground, and afterward it was removed from there and set over the pit without being attached as an oven should be, and impurity touched it, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that it contracts impurity.

For from that point onward, once it acquired the status of a utensil through the first firing,

even if

it was removed from its place of attachment to the ground [completely, without breaking it], and the impure oven was now intact

on a camel’s neck,

meaning that it had been entirely detached from the ground, it continues to be impure until its shards are broken.

Removing it intact from its place of attachment to the ground is not effective in considering this demolition.

And this is what the repetition in the verse, “And they shall be impure for you,” comes to teach.

Ulla said: And with regard to the first firing, according to the Sages,

who hold that the verse comes to include the possibility that it gives the oven the status of a utensil even if it is not attached to the ground, do not say that the first firing gives it the status of a utensil only when it was placed over the opening of the pit [but not firmly attached] and was fired there for the first time.

Rather,

even if

the oven underwent its first firing when it was not attached to the ground at all, but even when it was

suspended

at that time

on a camel’s neck,

and underwent its first firing there, the status of a utensil takes effect upon it.

And with regard to 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 been fired only when it was not firmly attached to the ground and had not yet become a fully completed utensil, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disputed whether they may be moved on Shabbat.

Rav Ashi raised an objection: If so,

according to Rava, who established the dispute between 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 disputing,

why did they need to formulate their dispute

with regard to shards of an oven?

Let them dispute with regard to the oven

itself,

in its entirety,

whether it may be moved.

For

now, the oven

whole

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

as he does not consider it a utensil because it has 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 utensils and that it is forbidden to move them?

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is as we originally said,

that their dispute concerns shards that perform a function resembling a function but not one resembling their original function, and the oven under discussion is an oven that was fired properly, so that its construction was completed.

And as for Rava’s question, why did they dispute the matter with regard to shards of an oven and not shards of ordinary utensils?

Your answer is:

And it is speaking of an object that performs the function of a tefaka,

which is fit for baking upon, like baking on fired roof tiles. The beraita is speaking of broad shards that are somewhat fit for baking with. However, they do not have an interior cavity through which they could be fired from within, but only from outside, similar to roof tiles.

And Rabbi Meir

spoke according to Rabbi Yehuda’s position:

And this is what he is saying:

According to me, even if they perform

these shards

a function,

it is likewise permitted to move them.

But according to you,

who hold that they must perform a function resembling their original function,

at least concede to me

—concede to me at least

that in such a case,

where it performs the function of a tefaka—a function resembling

its original function—

even according to your view it is permitted to move them.

And Rabbi Yehuda

holds

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.

There is an additional distinction:

There,

in the oven, one bakes the bread while it is

standing.

The bread is not placed lying down; rather, it is attached to the walls of the oven.

Whereas

here,

with the shards,

it is not standing.

Rather, the bread lies down while it is being baked.

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

We learned above:

Rabbi Yosei 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 them.

Ravina said: In accordance with whom do we now move

at present

the covers of the ovens of Mata Meḥasya

a place

that have no handles?

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

the interior of

a gourd,

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

If one fills it

with water,

and it does not

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 considered a base for muktzeh at that point.

But if not,

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

one may not fill it

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