Shabbat 146a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

that

for behold,

at the time ![](pamud.bmp "

exact position of the page")

when the serpent came upon Eve [יהיה מי שבשעה שהשיאה לאכול מעץ הדעת, בא עליה. דכתיב "הנחש השיאני" והוא לשון "נשואין] [when he incited her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, he came upon her. For it is written, “The serpent beguiled me,” and this is an expression of “marriage”],

it cast its impurity upon her.

he cast impurity into her.

The Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai—their impurity ceased.

For all those who stood there were sanctified, purified, and healed of every blemish. But

the idolaters, who did not stand at Mount Sinai—their impurity did not cease.

And for this reason they are impure to this day.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Converts,

who also were not at Mount Sinai,

what?

From where did their impurity cease?

He said to him: Even though they were not

at Mount Sinai,

their spiritual constellation was

there. And for this reason their impurity ceased.

And as it is written: “For those who are here with us, standing today before the Lord our God, and those who

are not here

with us today”—that is, even those who are destined to join Israel are included in the covenant.

And that which we said, that the impurity of the serpent did not cease until Sinai,

disagrees

with

that of Rav Abba bar Kahana.

For Rav Abba bar Kahana said: Until three generations, impurity did not cease from our forefathers.

For

Abraham fathered Ishmael, and Isaac fathered Esau,

but

from Jacob

onward impurity ceased. For

he fathered twelve tribes in whom there was no blemish.

It follows that even before Sinai impurity ceased.

Mishna:

A person may break a barrel

on Shabbat with a knife or a sword, in order

to eat dried figs from it .

For he is merely destroying the barrel, and there is no prohibition of Shabbat in destruction .

provided that he does not intend

to pierce it with a fine opening, in order

to make

from it

a vessel.

For by doing so he improves it, and he is liable on account of “making a vessel,” which is a derivative of “striking with a hammer.”

And one may not pierce the stopper [פקק] [a stopper]

the cork

of a barrel

which is attached to the mouth of the barrel. For when he pierces it, he makes an opening for the barrel. Rather, one must remove the entire stopper—

the words of Rabbi Judah.

And the Sages permit

even piercing the stopper, because it is not customary to make an opening for a barrel in this way.

And likewise, he may not pierce it

in the barrel

on its side.

And the Gemara explains it.

And if it was

the barrel already

pierced, he may not place wax on it

around the hole.

Because by doing so he smooths

it. And this is a derivative of “smoothing.”

Rabbi Judah said: An incident came before Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai in

the province of

Arabia,

concerning a person who did so on Shabbat.

And

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

said: I am concerned for this person

this man

with regard to

liability for

a sin-offering.

Perhaps he smoothed the wax in order to attach it to the walls of the vessel around the hole.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A person may break a barrel in order to eat dried figs from it.

Rav Oshaya said: They taught this

so

only

when the dried figs in the barrel are

pressed

and stuck together in one mass. And he needs an axe or a sword in order to cut from it and eat. Since he is handling the sword in order to cut the dried figs, he is also permitted to break the barrel with it.

But

if the dried figs are

separate,

and he does not need the sword in order to cut them,

he may not

handle the sword in order to break the barrel. And the reason will be explained shortly.

An objection was raised: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: A person may bring a barrel of wine, cut off its top with a sword, and place it before the guests on Shabbat, and he need not be concerned.

It follows that even when he needs the sword only for breaking the barrel, he is permitted to handle it, for wine is not subject to cutting. This is difficult for Rav Oshaya.

And we answer:

That

of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel is in accordance with the method of

the Sages.

For they say: All vessels may be handled on Shabbat, whether for a need or without a need. But

the Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah.

For he says: A vessel may be handled on Shabbat only for the use designated for it. Now, the sword is not intended for breaking the barrel. Therefore it may not be handled for this purpose, unless he needs the sword in order to cut the dried figs with it, which is its use. And in connection with this, he is also permitted to break the barrel with it.

And we ask:

And what compelled Rav Oshaya to establish the Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah,

and to say that it speaks specifically

of pressed figs?

Let him establish

the Mishna even

with

dried figs

that are separate,

which do not need cutting.

And

let us say that the Mishna follows

the Sages,

who permit handling a vessel even when it is not for its designated use.

Rava said:

Rav Oshaya established it in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah because

the Mishna was difficult for him.

For it was difficult to him,

why is it that the Mishna specifically taught

the Mishna specifically

“dried figs”?

Let it teach “fruits.” Rather,

infer from it

that specifically

with

dried figs

that are pressed

it is speaking, since they require cutting. But it is forbidden to handle the sword in order to break a barrel of fruits.

It was taught in one [baraita]: Baskets [כלים העשויים מכפות תמרים. והם כעין סלים. ונותנים לתוכם תמרים רעים כדי שיתבשלו] [vessels made from palm leaves, resembling baskets. Inferior dates are placed in them so that they will ripen]

vessels made from palm leaves, resembling baskets, into which inferior dates are placed so that they will ripen

of dried figs and of dates,

if they are tied with a rope, he

unties

them on Shabbat.

And

likewise he

breaks apart

and undoes the rope chains in the baskets.

And

likewise he

cuts

the ropes.

And it was taught in another [baraita]:

he

unties

the rope of the baskets.

But he may neither break it apart nor cut it

it. And they contradict one another.

And we answer:

It is not difficult. This

that teaches, “he breaks apart and cuts,”

is the Sages

for they permit handling the knife for any need, and even breaking apart and cutting the rope with it.

And

this

that teaches, “but he may neither break apart nor cut,”

is Rabbi Nehemiah,

for he forbids handling the knife for this purpose, since this is not its designated use.

And as it was taught: Rabbi Nehemiah says: Even a ladle, even a cloak, and even a knife,

which certainly have the status of vessels and are not muktzeh,

may be handled only for their designated use

which is assigned to them.

They asked Rav Sheshet: What is the ruling regarding piercing [לנקוב] [piercing]

making a hole in

a barrel with a spear [רומח] [a spear]

a lance

on Shabbat?

Do we say:

He intends to make an opening, and it is forbidden?

Because through making the opening he improves the barrel.

Or perhaps, he intends

to widen the wine’s outlet with a large hole so that it can flow out

generously, and it is permitted.

For since he did not pierce a round and fine opening, it is evident that he does not intend to improve the barrel through the opening. Therefore there is no prohibition of “making a vessel.”

He said to them

Rav Sheshet:

He intends to make an opening, and it is forbidden

because of making a vessel .

An objection was raised: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: A person may bring a barrel of wine and cut off its top with a sword.

It follows that he does not intend to make an opening. This is difficult for Rav Sheshet.

And we answer: It is not difficult. There, in cutting off the top of the barrel,

he certainly intends

the wine’s outlet

to be generous.

But

here,

when piercing the barrel with a spear, he intends to make an opening. For

if it is so that he intends the wine to flow generously,

he should have

opened

the stopper of the barrel. And since he did not do so, infer from it that he intends to improve the barrel through this opening.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not pierce the stopper

of a barrel—the words of Rabbi Judah. And the Sages permit. And he may not pierce it on its side.

Rav Huna said: The disagreement

between Rabbi Judah and the Sages is when he pierces the stopper

on top.

For specifically in this case the Sages permit, because it is not customary to make an opening there; rather, the entire stopper is removed.

But

to pierce the stopper

on the side, according to everyone it is forbidden.

Because this is the customary manner. Sometimes he does not want to remove the stopper, so that earth and refuse will not fall into the barrel. Therefore he pierces it on its side.

And this is what it teaches

in the continuation of the Mishna,

“and he may not pierce it on its side.”

For this also refers to the stopper.

And Rav Hisda said: The disagreement

between Rabbi Judah and the Sages is when he pierces the stopper

on the side.

For in this case Rabbi Judah forbids it, because this is the customary manner. Sometimes he does not want to remove the stopper, so that earth will not fall into the wine. And the Sages permit even in this case.

But

to pierce the stopper

on its top [מלמעלה] [from above],

from above,

according to everyone it is permitted.

For it is certainly not customary to open a barrel in this way.

And that which it teaches, “and he may not pierce it on its side,”

does not refer to the stopper. Rather,

there, it speaks of the body of the barrel

For it is forbidden because he intends to make an opening, and this is the customary manner.

The Sages taught: One may not pierce

in a vessel

a new hole on Shabbat.

But

if he comes to add

to the existing hole and widen it, he

may add.

And some say:

even

one may not add

to the existing hole in order to widen it.

And

all

agree

and concede

that one may pierce an old hole

that became stopped up, in order to open it

initially.

Because this is not considered making an opening. For the opening is made and exists, and its being stopped is of no significance and does not annul the status of an opening that it possesses.

And we inquire concerning this:

And

for

the first tanna

who permits adding,

what is different about a new hole, which one may not make

on Shabbat, because

he is making an opening?

But surely

adding

to the opening and widening it

also constitutes making an opening.

And this involves completing the labor of the vessel.

Rabba said: By Torah law, any opening that is not made for bringing in and taking out is not an opening.

And there is no prohibition of making a vessel in it. Therefore there is no Torah prohibition against making an opening in a vessel on Shabbat, since it is made only for taking out and not for bringing in. Rather,

the Sages decreed

in the case of all vessels

because

if we permit making an opening in them, people will come to make an opening also in

a chicken coop.

And an opening in a coop is an opening by Torah law, since it is made for bringing in and taking out, because

it is made to bring air

into the coop

and to take out foul air

from it to the outside.