Shabbat 146a (קמו.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

that

indeed

at the time

when the serpent came upon Eve [that is, at the time when he induced her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, he came upon her, as it is written: “The serpent beguiled me,” which is an expression related to marriage],

it cast its impurity upon her.

he cast impurity into her.

The impurity of the Jews who stood at Mount Sinai ceased.

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

the impurity of the gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, did not cease.

And for this reason they remain impure to this day.

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

who likewise were not at Mount Sinai,

what

is the source of the cessation of their impurity?

He said to him: Although they themselves were not

at Mount Sinai,

their constellation was

there. And for this reason their impurity ceased. And so

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 were destined to join the Jewish people are included in the covenant.

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

disagrees

with

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 the impurity ceased. For

he fathered twelve tribes, none of whom had any defect.

It follows that the impurity ceased even before Sinai.

Mishna:

A person may break a barrel

on Shabbat with a knife or a sword, in order

to eat dried figs from it.

This is because he is merely damaging the barrel, and damaging is not prohibited on Shabbat.

Provided that he does not intend

to pierce it with a fine opening, in order

to make

it into a

utensil.

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

And one may not pierce the lid [a stopper]

the cork

of a barrel

that is attached to the mouth of the barrel. For when he pierces it, he makes an opening in the barrel. Rather, he must remove the entire lid—

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

But the Sages permit

even piercing the lid, because it is not customary to make an opening in a barrel in this manner.

And likewise, one may not pierce it

in the barrel

at its side.

And the Gemara explains this statement.

And if it was

already

pierced, he may not apply wax to it

around the hole,

because he smooths

it by doing so. This is a derivative of “erasing.”

Rabbi Yehuda said: An incident came before Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai in

the country of

Arabia,

involving a person who did this on Shabbat.

And

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said:

I am concerned for him

this person

with regard to

liability for a

sin-offering,

lest he have smoothed the wax to attach it to the sides 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

only

when the dried figs in the barrel are

pressed together

and stuck to one another in a single mass, and he needs an axe or a sword in order to cut some from it and eat them. Since he is handling the sword in order to cut the dried figs, he may also use it to break the barrel.

But

if the dried figs are

separate,

and he does not need a sword to cut them,

he may not

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

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A person may bring a barrel of wine, sever 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 to break the barrel, he may handle it, since wine cannot be cut. This is difficult for Rav Oshaya.

And we answer:

That

statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is in accordance with the view of

the Sages.

For they say: All utensils may be handled on Shabbat, whether for their designated use or for a use that is not their designated use. But

the Mishna is in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya.

For he says: A utensil may be handled on Shabbat only for its designated use. A sword is not intended for breaking a barrel. Therefore, it may not be handled for this purpose, unless he needs the sword to cut the dried figs, which is its use; and in the course of doing so, he may also use it to break the barrel.

And we challenge this:

What difficulty prompted Rav Oshaya to establish the Mishna in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya,

and to say that it speaks specifically

of pressed-together figs?

Let him establish

the Mishna even with

separate

dried figs

that are separate

and do not require cutting.

And

let us say that the Mishna follows

the Sages,

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

Rava said: Rav Oshaya established it in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya because

the Mishna itself presented him with a difficulty.

the Mishna posed a difficulty for him.

For he found it difficult:

Why is it specifically stated

in the Mishna

“dried figs”?

Let it state “fruit.” Rather,

infer from it

that it speaks specifically

of

dried figs

pressed together,

which require cutting. But it is prohibited to handle a sword in order to break a barrel of fruit.

It was taught in one beraita: Baskets [vessels made from date palms, resembling baskets, into which inferior dates are placed 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 dates,

if they are tied with a rope, he may

untie

them on Shabbat.

And

likewise, he may

undo

and unravel the rope chains in the baskets.

And

likewise, he may

cut

the ropes.

And another beraita was taught:

he may

untie

the rope of the baskets,

but he may not undo it or cut it

and the two beraitot contradict one another.

And we answer:

This is not difficult. This

statement, which teaches “he may undo and cut,” is the view of

the Sages,

who permit handling a knife for any purpose, including undoing and cutting the rope with it.

And

this

statement, which teaches “but he may not undo or cut,” is the view of

Rabbi Neḥemya,

who prohibits handling the knife for this purpose, since this is not its designated use.

As it was taught: Rabbi Neḥemya says: Even a ladle, even a cloak, and even a knife,

which certainly have the status of utensils and are not muktze,

may be handled only for their designated use

for which they are intended.

They asked Rav Sheshet: What is the law regarding piercing [making a hole]

making a hole in

a barrel with a spear [a lance]

a lance

on Shabbat?

Do we say:

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

For by making the opening, he improves the barrel.

Or perhaps he intends

to enlarge the outlet for the wine through a large hole so that it will flow

generously, and it is permitted.

Since he did not make a neat, round hole, it is evident that he does not intend to improve the barrel by making an opening. Therefore, there is no prohibition of “making a utensil.”

He said to them

Rav Sheshet:

He intends to make an opening, and it is prohibited

on account of making a utensil.

The Gemara raises an objection: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A person may bring a barrel of wine and sever 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, when severing the top of the barrel,

he certainly intends

the wine outlet

to be generous.

But

here,

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

if he indeed intended the outlet to be generous,

he should have

opened

the lid of the barrel. Since he did not do so, infer from this that he intends to improve the barrel by making this opening.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not pierce the lid

of a barrel—the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. But the Sages permit it. And one may not pierce it at its side.

Rav Huna said: The dispute

between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages applies when one pierces the lid

on top.

It is specifically in this case that the Sages permit it, because it is not customary to make an opening there; rather, one removes the entire lid.

But

to pierce the lid

at the side, everyone agrees that it is prohibited,

because that is the customary manner. Sometimes one does not want to remove the lid, so that dirt and refuse will not fall into the barrel, and therefore he pierces it at its side.

And this is what is meant by the teaching

later in the Mishna:

“And one may not pierce it at its side.”

This also refers to the lid.

But Rav Ḥisda said: The dispute

between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages applies when one pierces the lid

at the side.

In this manner Rabbi Yehuda prohibits it, because that is the customary way; sometimes one does not want to remove the lid, so that dirt will not fall into the wine. But the Sages permit it even in this case.

But

to pierce the lid

on its upper surface [from above],

from above,

everyone agrees that it is permitted,

for it is certainly not customary to open a barrel in this manner.

And as for the teaching, “And one may not pierce it at its side,”

it does not refer to the lid. Rather,

there, it is speaking of the body of the barrel itself,

which is prohibited because he intends to make an opening, and that is the customary manner.

The Sages taught: One may not pierce

a utensil

with a new hole on Shabbat.

But

if he comes to add

to an existing hole and enlarge it, he

may enlarge it.

And there are those who say:

Even

one may not enlarge

an existing hole.

And

everyone

agrees

and concedes

that one may pierce an old hole

that had become sealed, in order to reopen it,

initially.

For this is not considered making an opening, since the opening was already made and remains so. Its being sealed is of no significance and does not nullify its status as an opening.

And we inquire:

And

for

the first tanna,

who permits enlarging an existing hole,

what is the difference from a new hole, which he may not make,

on the grounds

that he is making an opening?

But when he

enlarges

the opening,

he is likewise making an opening.

And this involves completing the work of the utensil.

Rabba said: By Torah law, any opening that is not made to allow things to enter and leave is not an opening.

And it does not involve making a utensil. Therefore, by Torah law there is no prohibition against making an opening in a utensil on Shabbat, since this opening is made only to allow things to leave, and not to allow things to enter. Rather,

the Sages decreed

with regard to all utensils

because

if we permit making openings in them, people will come to make an opening as well in

a chicken coop.

An opening in a coop is an opening by Torah law, since it is made to allow things to enter and leave,

because it is made to bring in air

into the coop

and to let out the stale air

from it.