Shabbat 126b (קכו:) — the Talmud in English

But didn’t we learn

later in the Mishna:

All lids of vessels

that have a handle may be moved on Shabbat?

And Rav Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: And this is the case only when they have the status of a utensil.

For we require that the lid of the vessel be fit for use independently. But if it is not fit for use on its own, we do not say that the lid of a vessel is considered like a utensil.

And we see from Rabbi Yohanan’s words that an object that does not have the status of a utensil may not be moved.

And this reed, too, does not have the status of a utensil; so why is it permitted to move it? [

And as for the fact that it is fit for opening and closing the door, this does not give it the status of a utensil; rather, it has the status of a building. For the door is attached to the ground.

And Tosafot explained that “the status of a utensil” means that it was repaired and designated for this purpose. It is not necessary for it to be fit for another use ].

And if you should say that here, too,

this reed is discussing a case

where it has the status of a utensil

since it is fit for turning olives with it or cracking nuts with it,

it is impossible to say this. For:

Does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel require “the status of a utensil”

in order to permit moving it?

But wasn’t it taught in a beraita: Palm branches that one cut,

that he cut

for firewood

for kindling,

and then reconsidered their use

to use them

for sitting

upon them—

he must tie them

on the eve of Shabbat in order to designate them for sitting.

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

And it is proven that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel does not require the status of a utensil in order to permit moving an object. For palm branches do not have the status of a utensil.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan agrees with him

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

in one respect:

it is sufficient that the object be prepared and designated for this purpose, even though it was not tied.

And he disagrees with him

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

in one respect.

For Rabbi Yohanan requires that it have the status of a utensil.

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappa taught at the entrance of the Exilarch’s house: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who requires that the stopper of a window be tied and suspended.

Rav Amram raised an objection

to Rabbi Yitzhak Nappa from what we learned in the Mishna, in the chapter One Who Was Overtaken by Darkness:

And there was an incident in the days of the father of Rabbi Tzadok and in the days of Abba Shaul ben Botnit, when they stopped up the opening with a clay vessel and tied the measuring spoon with a reed, in order to determine whether there was an opening of a handbreadth in the vat or not.

And from their words we learned that one may stop up

the window,

measure

a ritual bath on Shabbat,

and tie on Shabbat

a knot that is not permanent.

And it is proven that we rule that it is permitted to place the stopper in the window even though it is not tied, contrary to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.

Abaye said

to Rav Amram:

What is your reasoning

for raising an objection to Rabbi Yitzhak Nappa?

He could answer you that this Mishna follows the opinion of the Rabbis, but as a matter of halakha we rule in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

Rather, your objection is

because it teaches

a Mishna

without qualification.

And since the tanna taught the Mishna there without qualification in accordance with the Rabbis, it follows that the halakha is in accordance with the unqualified Mishna, and thus in accordance with the Rabbis.

That is not an objection. For the Mishna of

the dragging bolt

is also an unqualified Mishna.

And there the Mishna was stated without qualification in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibits it.

And if so, you cannot raise an objection to Rabbi Eliezer.

And we reject this:

Even so,

we must say that the halakha follows the unqualified Mishna in the chapter One Who Was Overtaken by Darkness, which was stated in accordance with the Rabbis, because we have

“an authoritative act”.

For since they acted in accordance with the Rabbis, infer from this that this is the halakha, and not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

Mishna:

All lids of vessels that have a handle—

to hold them by it—

may be moved on Shabbat.

Rabbi Yosei said: When are these words stated,

that a handle is required?

In the case of lids of structures in the ground.

For example, the lid of a pit or cistern: If they do not have a handle by means of which it is apparent that they were made to be placed and lifted, the matter appears like building.

But in the case of lids of vessels, either way—

whether they have a handle

or either way—

whether they do not have a handle—

they may be moved on Shabbat.

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rav Asi said that Rav Yohanan said:

These lids that are permitted to be moved,

and this is the case only when they have the status of a utensil.

For they are fit for other uses. But the fact that they serve as lids for vessels does not give them the designation of utensils.

And Rav Yehuda bar Sheila explains his statement:

Everyone agrees that lids of structures in the ground,

only

if they have a handle, yes,

then it is permitted to move them.

If not,

and they do not have a handle,

no.

Then it is prohibited to move them.

As for lids of vessels, even though they do not have a handle,

it is permitted to move them. Since they have the status of a utensil, it makes no difference whether they have a handle or do not have one.

They disagree

—the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei—

with regard to vessels that they attached to the ground,

such as an oven and a stove.

One master—

the first tanna—

holds

that since they are attached to the ground,

we decree

that they may not be moved, lest one come to move lids of structures in the ground; and they require a handle.

And the other master—

Rabbi Yosei—

holds that we do not decree

lest one come to move lids of structures in the ground. And they do not require a handle.

Another version:

They disagree—

with regard to the lid of an oven.

One master—

Rabbi Yosei—

likens it to a lid of a structure in the ground,

and requires a handle.

And the other master—

the first tanna—

likens it to a lid of a vessel,

and does not require a handle.

We have completed the chapter “All the Utensils.”

Mishna:

One may clear away

from the house on Shabbat,

even four or five baskets

of straw and of grain,

if he needs their place,

because

he wishes to seat

guests there.

Or

if he needs to clear them from the study hall,

because of the disruption of the study hall,

so that there will be room for everyone to sit.

But one may not

clear away

the storehouse

a storage place for grain. The reason for this will be explained in the Gemara.

And the tanna explains which things he is permitted to clear away:

One may clear away pure teruma,

because it is fit for a koen to eat, or to feed to his animal.

But impure teruma may not be moved, since it is fit neither for human consumption nor for feeding an animal on Shabbat, because impure teruma is not disposed of on Shabbat, and feeding impure teruma to an animal is considered disposal [see Rashi].

And

one may clear away

demai,

even though it is doubtfully tithed. Since, if he were to renounce ownership of his property and become poor, the demai would be fit for him to eat [for the Sages did not decree a prohibition against eating demai for the poor], he may therefore move it.

And

likewise one may clear away

First Tithe from which

its

teruma

namely, terumat ma'aser, has been removed.

And

likewise

Second Tithe and consecrated property

after

they have been redeemed.

The Gemara explains what the novelty is concerning these latter cases.

And

one may clear away

dry lupine,

a type of legume,

because it is food for ravens [some versions read:

there are those who read

the poor].

But one may not

clear away

definite untithed produce,

which is known not to have had terumot and tithes separated from it.

Nor

may one clear away

First

Tithe

from which its teruma has not been removed,

since it is unfit for consumption and is muktze.

Nor may one clear away Second Tithe and consecrated property that have not been redeemed,

since they too are muktze.

And

likewise

one may not

clear away

luf,

a type of legume that is unfit for consumption without cooking, even for an animal.

Nor mustard.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits luf,

to move it on Shabbat,

because it is food for ravens.

The Gemara explains that he maintains that even a person who does not own ravens may move it, because since it is customary for the wealthy to raise them, it is considered “food” and is not subject to the laws of muktze.

Bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of sticks,

soft reeds, may be moved only

if he prepared them,

designated them [Rashi below, 128a] to remain

for animal feed —

they may be moved

on Shabbat.

But if not,

if he did not designate them —

they may not be moved.

Because wood generally stands for fuel, and since one does not kindle a fire on Shabbat, it is muktze. Therefore, designation is required [Korban Netanel, 128a, letter alef].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may clear away even four or five baskets.

And we raise a difficulty:

Now, five

baskets

may be cleared away —

four

baskets

is it necessary

to state?

And we explain:

Rav Hisda said:

This is the meaning of the Mishna:

One may clear away

only

four

baskets

of

the five

baskets in the house, or from a small storehouse containing only five baskets. This is because he may not clear the place of the baskets completely, lest he notice hollows in the ground beneath them and then come to level the hollows in the ground.

baskets in the house, or from a small storehouse containing only five baskets. He may not clear away all the baskets completely, lest he notice depressions in the ground beneath them and then come to level those depressions.

And

he may clear away even

five

baskets

from a storehouse

that is

large,

where additional baskets remain.

But he may clear away no more than five, because of the exertion involved.

And what

is the tanna saying by the phrase

“But one may not clear away the storehouse”?

It cannot be explained to mean that he may not finish clearing away all the baskets in the storehouse, since we already learn this from the first clause, which teaches: “four out of five.”

It comes to teach us an additional law:

that

if he had not begun taking grain from this storehouse for his own food or for his animal's food before Shabbat,

he may not begin

taking what is found

from the storehouse initially.

That is, he may not begin taking from it on Shabbat because of the prohibition of muktze, since the grain had been stored in the storehouse.

And

this Mishna,

whose opinion is it? It is

Rabbi Judah's, who maintains

that there is a prohibition of

muktze

even with regard to something fit for human consumption, if a person set it aside in his mind by not intending, when Shabbat began, to eat from it.