Shabbat 125b — the Talmud in English

A vine branch

of a grapevine

that is tied to a pitcher —

a vessel with which one draws water from a pit or spring,

one fills with it on Shabbat

it is permitted to fill the pitcher with water, since the branch becomes like a part of the pitcher and it has the status of a vessel.

A stopper

a board with which one blocks

the window. Rabbi Eliezer says: When it is —

the stopper

tied and hanging,

so that the rope with which it is tied does not reach the ground,

one blocks

closes

with it

the window on Shabbat.

And if not,

if it is neither tied nor hanging,

one does not block with it.

And the Sages say: Whether in this manner or in that manner, one blocks with it.

And in the Gemara it is explained.

Gemara:

We learned there —

below:

A stone that is on

that is resting upon

the mouth of a barrel,

and he needs to take wine from it,

he tilts

the barrel

onto its side and it —

the stone

falls.

Rabba said that Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

that which the Mishna teaches below, that if the barrel was among other barrels and he is afraid to tilt the barrel, lest the stone fall onto the barrel beside it, he lifts the barrel, removes it from among the barrels, and tilts it onto its side.

They taught this only

that it is permitted to do this

in the case of one who forgot

the stone on the barrel,

but in the case of one who placed

the stone intentionally on the barrel, on the eve of Shabbat,

it becomes

the barrel

a base for a forbidden object,

since it is a base for the stone, which is an object forbidden to move. And consequently it is also forbidden to move the barrel on Shabbat.

And Rav Yosef said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught this only

that one must tilt the barrel and it is forbidden to move it directly,

in the case of one who forgot,

who did not intend to make the stone a cover for the barrel.

But in the case of one who placed it

intentionally,

it becomes

the stone

a cover for the barrel,

and it is permitted to move the stone in its ordinary manner.

Rabba said: We raise an objection from our teaching

that I said, that when one places the stone intentionally, the stone does not become a vessel.

We learned in the Mishna —

“The stone in the kiruya, if

one fills with it and it does not fall, one fills with it,”

and we see that the stone becomes part of the vessel.

And Rabba said,

“It is not so” —

this is not a difficulty.

There,

in the case of the kiruya,

since he fastened it

to the stone,

he made it

a

wall

of the kiruya. This is not so with the stone that is on the mouth of the barrel, which is not part of the barrel and is forbidden to move.

Rav Yosef said: And we raise an objection from our teaching

that I said, that when one places it, the stone becomes like part of the vessel.

We learned in the Mishna —

“And if not,”

when the stone is not fastened,

“one does not fill with it.”

And we see that the stone does not become part of the vessel through mere placement.

And Rav Yosef said,

“It is not so” —

this is not a difficulty.

There,

in the case of the kiruya,

since he did not fasten it,

and without fastening it is impossible to fill it with water,

he entirely nullified it

from the status of a vessel, since he demonstrates that he does not consider the stone part of the vessel. But in the case of the stone on the barrel, through mere placement he gives it the status of a vessel.

And we explain:

With regard to what do they disagree,

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi?

One —

Rabbi Ami —

holds that an act is required,

an important act with the stone, in order to consider it a vessel.

And the other —

Rabbi Asi —

holds that an act is not required,

an important act in order to consider it a vessel.

And Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi followed

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi

their own positions!

For when Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Hanina said — and some say that Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Hanina said: Once Rabbi went to a certain place and found a layer of stones —

stones arranged and standing for construction.

And he said to his students,

on the eve of Shabbat,

“Go out and designate

them for sitting

so that we may sit on them tomorrow”

on Shabbat.

And Rabbi did not require them to perform an act,

to perform an act so that they would be able to sit on them tomorrow.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi required them to perform an act,

on the eve of Shabbat.

And we explain:

What

act

did he tell them

to perform?

Rabbi Ami said: “Go out and arrange them”,

and arrange them for sitting, so that tomorrow we will not need to touch them and move them,

he said to them.

Since designation through any slight act is not effective in giving them the status of a vessel. And the same applies to the stone on the mouth of the barrel: it does not become a vessel through mere placement.

Rabbi Asi said: “Go out and rub them”,

remove the mud from them so that they will be fit for sitting,

he said to them,

and tomorrow they will be able to move them. For any slight act is sufficient to give them the status of a vessel. And the same applies to the stone on the mouth of the barrel: placement is sufficient to give it the status of a vessel.

It was stated: Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said: A pile of beams

a group of wood arranged for construction

was

in Rabbi’s incident, and not stones.

And Rabbi Yohanan ben Shaul said: A sounding pole of a ship

with which the sailors sound in order to determine that the water is deep and that the ship can sail there

was.

The one who says that it was a sounding pole

was

all the more so a pile of beams,

since a slight act is sufficient to give it the status of a vessel.

And the one who says that it was a pile of beams

was

but with regard to a sounding pole, he is particular about it,

so that it not become bent, and he assigns it a designated place; it is muktze on account of financial loss, and it is forbidden to move it until he performs an important act with it. ,

We learned in the Mishna:

“A vine branch that is tied”

and so on.

And we infer:

“Tied” — yes,

it is permitted to fill with it water;

“not tied” — no,

it is forbidden to fill with it, even though it is fit to hang a pitcher on it and he had this in mind from the eve of Shabbat.

Shall we say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

For it was taught in a beraita: “Palm branches”

hard branches from which the leaves had fallen

of a palm tree, which he cut

which he chopped

for wood,

for the purpose of firewood,

and then changed his mind concerning them

to use them

for sitting, he must tie them

on the eve of Shabbat.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not tie them,

and thought alone is sufficient. And since our Mishna requires one to tie the vine branch, infer from this that our Mishna disagrees with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rav Sheshet said: You may even say

that our Mishna is that of

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; here we are dealing with one that is attached

the branch

to its parent —

to the grapevine, and therefore we require that it be tied, and thought alone is insufficient.

And we object:

If so,

that our Mishna is dealing with one that is attached, he is

using something attached to the ground,

and even if the branch was tied from the eve of Shabbat, it is forbidden to use something attached to the ground.

And we answer: The pitcher is attached to the branch at a height of

less than three

handbreadths, as, for example, when he needs to draw water from a spring that is not deep; and it is permitted to use a tree below three handbreadths.

Rav Ashi said: You may even say

that our Mishna is dealing

with one that is detached,

and the reason the Mishna required that he tie it is that it is easy to break,

a decree lest

he cut it off

tomorrow if it turns out to be too long, and it follows that he would be making a vessel on Shabbat and would be liable on account of striking the final blow. But with palm branches for sitting, which are hard, and there is no concern lest he cut them, thought from the eve of Shabbat is sufficient.

We learned in the Mishna:

“The stopper of the window”

and so on.

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Everyone

the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer

agree that one does not make a temporary tent initially,

it is forbidden to spread a mat and the like over four partitions or four posts in order to make shade, even for a temporary need,

on a Festival, and it is unnecessary to say on Shabbat.

[And specifically a roof is forbidden to make, but an upright partition does not have the status of a tent, and it is permitted to spread it for purposes of privacy. And regarding our Mishna, which deals with the stopper of the window, some explain that it is dealing with a window in a roof, while others explain that since the window is located in a permanent building, adding a partition there has the same law as adding to the roof of a temporary tent.]

They disagreed only with regard to adding

to a temporary construction.

For Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not add on a Festival, and it is unnecessary to say on Shabbat,

and therefore he requires that the stopper be tied and hanging.

And the Sages say: One may add on Shabbat

to a temporary tent

and it is unnecessary to say on a Festival.

We learned in the Mishna: “And the Sages say: Whether in this manner or in that manner, one blocks with it.”

And we explain:

What is “whether in this manner or in that manner”?