Shabbat 126b — the Talmud in English

But did we not learn

below in the Mishna,

all lids of vessels ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

that have a handle may be removed on Shabbat.

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

For we require that the lid of the vessel be fit for use in its own right. And if it is not fit for use by itself, we do not say that the lid of a vessel is like a vessel.

And we see from Rabbi Yohanan’s words that an object which does not have the status of a vessel is forbidden to move.

And this reed also does not have the status of a vessel; and why is it permitted to move? [

And as for the fact that it is fit to open and close the door, this does not give it the status of a vessel, but rather the status of building. For the door is attached to the ground.

And Tosafot explained that “the status of a vessel” means that they prepared and designated it for this. And we do not require that it be fit for another use ].

And if you would say that here too

this reed is speaking

of one that has the status of a vessel

since it is fit to turn olives with it or to crack nuts with it,

It is impossible to say this. For:

Does Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel require “the status of a vessel”

in order to permit moving it?

But it was taught: Palm branches that one cut,

that he cut

for the sake of wood

for fuel,

and then changed his mind concerning them

to use them

for sitting

upon them—

one must bind them

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

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: One need not bind them.

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

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan agrees with him

that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel

in one matter

that it is sufficient that it be prepared and designated for this, even though it is not bound.

And he disagrees with him

that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel

in one matter.

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

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

that we require the stopper of the window to be tied and hanging.

Rav Amram raised an objection

to Rabbi Yitzhak Nappa from this, which we learned in the Mishna, in the chapter “One Whose Darkness Fell Upon Him”:

And it happened in the days of Rabbi Tzadok’s father and in the days of Abba Shaul ben Botnit that they stopped the skylight with a shard, and tied the ladle with rushes, to know whether there was an opening of a handbreadth in the vat or not.

And from their words we learned that one may stop

the window,

and 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 of the window even though it is not tied, and not in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer’s words.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Amram:

What is your reasoning

that you raised an objection to Rabbi Yitzhak Nappa?

He can answer you that this Mishna holds in accordance with the view of the Rabbis, but as a matter of halakha we rule in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

Rather, your difficulty is

because it teaches

a Mishna

anonymously.

And since the tanna stated the Mishna there anonymously in accordance with the Rabbis, the halakha is automatically in accordance with the anonymous Mishna, and in accordance with the Rabbis.

This is not a difficulty. For the Mishna of

the dragged bolt too—

is also anonymous.

And there the Mishna stated anonymously in accordance with the view of Rabbi Eliezer, who forbids it.

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

And we reject this:

Even so,

we have to say that the halakha is in accordance with the anonymous Mishna of the chapter “One Whose Darkness Fell Upon Him,” which stated anonymously in accordance with the Rabbis, since we have

“a deed of a rabbi”.

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

Mishna:

All lids of vessels that have a handle—

to hold them by it—

may be removed on Shabbat.

Rabbi Yose said: In what case are these words stated,

that we require a handle?

With regard to lids of ground structures.

For example, the lid of a pit or a cistern, for 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 to be building.

But with regard to lids of vessels, in either case—

whether they have a handle,

or in either case—

whether they do not have a handle—

they may be removed on Shabbat.

Gemara:

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

These lids, which are permitted to move,

and this is when they have the status of a vessel.

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

And Rav Yehuda bar Sheila explains his words:

According to everyone, lids of ground structures,

only

if they have a handle, they may not

then be moved.

If not,

and if they do not have a handle,

not.

Then they are forbidden to move.

Lids of vessels, even though they do not have a handle,

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

They disagree

the Rabbis and Rabbi Yose,

with regard to vessels that they attached to the ground

in 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, on account of lids of ground structures, and they require a handle.

And one master

Rabbi Yose

holds that we do not decree

on account of lids of ground structures, and they do not require a handle.

Another wording:

They disagree—

with regard to the lid of an oven.

One master

Rabbi Yose

compares it to the lid of a ground structure,

and requires a handle.

And one master

the first tanna

compares it to the lid of a vessel,

and does not require a handle.

We shall return to you, chapter “All the Vessels”

Mishna:

We clear away

on Shabbat from the house,

even four or five baskets

of straw and of grain,

if he needs their place,

because

he wishes to seat there

the guests.

Or

he needs to clear them from the beit-midrash,

because of the interruption of the beit-midrash,

so that there will be room for everyone to sit.

But not

does one clear away

the storehouse,

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

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

One clears away pure teruma,

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

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

And

one clears away the

demai,

even though it is doubtfully tithed. Since, if he were to declare his property ownerless and become poor, the demai would be fit for him to eat [for they did not decree the prohibition of eating demai upon the poor], he is therefore permitted to move it.

And

likewise one clears away

first tithe from which

its

teruma has been removed,

that is, the terumat maaser.

And

likewise

second tithe and consecrated property

after

they have been redeemed.

And in the Gemara it is explained what the novelty is in these latter cases.

And

one clears away

the turmus,

a species of legume,

when dry, because it is food for ravens [

some versions read

for the poor ].

But not

does one clear away

definite untithed produce,

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

And not

does one clear away the

tithe

first

from which its teruma has not been removed,

for it is not fit for eating and it is muktze.

And not second tithe and consecrated property that have not been redeemed,

for they too are muktze.

And

likewise

not

does one clear away

the lupine,

a species of legume that is not fit for eating without cooking, not even for an animal.

And not the mustard.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits the lupine,

to move it on Shabbat,

because it is food for ravens.

And in the Gemara it is explained that he holds that even a person who does not have ravens is permitted to move it, because since it is the way of the wealthy to grow it, it is considered “food” and is not subject to the laws of muktze.

Bundles of straw, bundles of wood, and bundles of twigs,

soft reeds, are only

if he prepared them,

designated them [Rashi below, 128a] so that they would stand

for animal food—

they may be moved

on Shabbat.

And if not,

if he did not designate them—

they may not be moved.

Because ordinarily wood is intended 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 clears away even four or five baskets.

And we raised a difficulty:

Now, five

baskets

he clears away—

four

baskets,

is it necessary

to say so?

And we explain:

Rav Hisda said:

This is the meaning of the Mishna:

He clears away

only

four

baskets

from

within

five

baskets that are in the house, or from a small storehouse containing only five baskets. For he is not permitted to clear away 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.

And

he is permitted to clear away even

five

baskets

from a storehouse

that is

large,

with additional baskets remaining in it.

However, he may clear away only five, and no more, because of exertion.

And what

is the tanna saying

“But not the storehouse”?

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

It teaches us an additional law:

that

if he did not begin to take from this storehouse for his food or for his animal’s food before Shabbat—

he may not begin

to take from what is found

in the storehouse initially.

That is, he may not begin to take 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 holds

that there is a prohibition of

muktze

even with an item fit for human consumption, if he set it aside in his mind by not intending, when Shabbat began, to eat from it.