Shabbat 146b (קמו:) — the Talmud in English

And since in all vessels the opening is prohibited only because of this decree, they prohibited only a new opening.

But if he comes to enlarge

the existing opening,

he may enlarge it.

For in this case the decree concerning a chicken coop does not apply, because

enlarging an opening certainly does not occur in a chicken coop.

Because

when the opening is large,

a weasel [a creeping creature], such as a mongoose or a rat, may enter

and kill the chickens.

We learned above:

And some say: One may not enlarge

the existing opening.

And we explain: Their reasoning is that there is still room to issue a decree concerning it because of a chicken coop. For even in a chicken coop,

sometimes he did not initially prepare

the opening at the appropriate size,

and he may come

on Shabbat

to widen it [to enlarge it].

[that is, to enlarge it].

Rav Naḥman taught in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of those who say.

And one may not even enlarge the opening.

We learned above:

And they agree that one may initially open an old hole.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: They taught

that one may open it

only where

the sealing of

the

old hole

is made

in order

to preserve

the wine’s aroma, so that it will not evaporate. Since it is not a proper seal, it is considered nothing, and the opening is regarded as though it still exists. Therefore, when it is opened again, it is not considered that he has made an opening.

But

if the sealing is made in order

to reinforce

the vessel, so that its wine will not escape,

it is prohibited

to open it on Shabbat. Since it is a proper seal, the old hole is nullified, and this is like making a new opening now.

And we inquire concerning this:

What are the circumstances of “to preserve,”

and

what are the circumstances of “to reinforce”?

Rav Ḥisda said:

If the hole is

above

the level of

the wine, this is “to preserve.”

For it is evident that when he seals it, he seals it only in order to preserve the wine, since the wine cannot escape from there and there is no need to reinforce it.

But if the hole is

below

the level of

the wine,

then when he seals it,

this is “to reinforce,”

so that the wine will not escape from there.

Rabbah said: Below the wine, too, this is “to preserve,”

because the weight of the wine does not rest upon it. And in order to prevent the wine from escaping, any kind of sealing is sufficient for it. The designation of an opening has therefore still not been removed from it.

And what are the circumstances of “to reinforce”? —

For example, when a hole was made

in the barrel close to its bottom,

below

the level of

the sediment. Since the entire weight of the wine rests there, he seals it with a proper seal.

near its bottom. Since the entire weight of the wine rests there, he seals it with a proper sealing.

Abaye said to Rabbah:

There is

a beraita that supports you,

which indicates that the designation of an opening is removed only by a proper seal.

For we hold that a courtyard is divided according to its openings. If a courtyard is jointly owned by several homeowners whose houses open onto the courtyard, when they come to divide the courtyard among themselves, each house is allotted four cubits in the courtyard along the width of its opening, for every opening it has. Thus, a house with several openings receives more of the courtyard than a house with one opening. They divide the remainder of the courtyard equally.

And it was taught:

A house

whose opening

is sealed has four cubits

opposite its opening. For any opening whose sideposts [the beams surrounding it] still exist has not lost the designation of an opening, even when it is sealed.

But if he

broke through its sideposts

and then sealed it,

it no longer has four cubits,

since the designation of an opening has been removed from it.

And likewise we hold that a house without an opening, with a corpse inside it, is like a grave that imparts ritual impurity to four cubits on all sides. This is a rabbinic decree, lest one spread over the grave without noticing it.

And

a house

whose opening is

sealed,

with a corpse inside it,

does not impart impurity

to

all around it,

because the designation of an opening still applies to it and it is not like a grave.

But if he

broke through its sideposts

and sealed it, it

imparts impurity

for four cubits to

all around it,

since it is like a grave, because the designation of an opening has been removed from it.

It follows that whenever the sealing is not a proper seal, the designation of an opening still applies to it. The same is true with regard to the opening of a barrel on Shabbat.

A hollow tube [

a hollow reed ]—

Rav prohibited

inserting it into the hole of a barrel on Shabbat so that the wine would flow through it.

And Shmuel permitted

doing so.

And we explain: If he

cuts

the reed

initially

in order to adjust it to the size of the hole,

everyone agrees that it is prohibited,

since “cutting” is a primary category of labor.

And if the reed had already been inserted into the hole, then came out, and on Shabbat he came

to return it

to the hole,

everyone agrees that it is permitted.

They disagree

with regard to a hollow tube

that had already been cut,

and which matches the size of the hole, but

had not yet been fitted.

It had not previously been placed in the hole to determine whether it was the correct size.

The one who prohibits issued a decree

because if we permit him to insert it initially on Shabbat,

perhaps

he will see that the reed does not fit the hole,

and will come

even

to cut it initially.

And the one who permits

holds that

we do not issue such a decree

in this case.

And this dispute

is

the dispute of

the tannaim

.

As it was taught:

One may not cut a tube [

a hollow reed ]

on a Festival; and needless to say

that one may not cut it

on Shabbat,

since its violation is punishable by karet and it is more severe than a Festival, whose prohibition is only a prohibition not to do.

And if the tube had already been inserted into the barrel before Shabbat and

fell out, one may return it on Shabbat

to its place.

And needless to say

that one may return it

on a Festival.

And Rabbi Yashya is lenient.

And we inquire:

With regard to what does Rabbi Yashya speak [where does he refer]?

[that is, where does his statement apply]?

If you say it refers to the first clause,

and he comes to say that one may even cut it initially, this cannot be said,

for that would be fashioning a vessel

and is prohibited by Torah law.

Rather,

Rabbi Yashya refers

to the latter clause,

and comes to say that if it fell out, it is permitted to return it.

And we ask again: But

the first tanna also permits

it. In what do Rabbi Yashya and he disagree?

Rather, certainly, the case is one of a tube

certainly, it is with regard to a tube

that had been cut

before Shabbat,

and

still

had not been fitted; this is the issue between them. One

the first tanna

holds that we issue a decree,

lest one come to cut it initially, in accordance with Rav.

And the other holds that we do not issue such a decree,

in accordance with Shmuel.

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, taught in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yashya,

and we do not issue a decree lest one come to cut it initially.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if it was perforated,

one may not place wax on it, because he would be smoothing it.

Thick oil [

thick oil ]—

Rav prohibited

spreading it on Shabbat.

And Shmuel permitted

spreading it.

And we explain: According to everyone, there is no Torah prohibition of “smoothing” in this matter. Smoothing applies specifically to something very thick, such as wax. Rather,

the one who prohibits

holds that

we issue a decree

concerning it,

because

if we permit it, people will also come to permit spreading

wax. And the one who permits

holds that

we do not issue such a decree.

such a decree.

Rav Shmuel bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef: You explicitly told us in the name of Rav: Thick oil—

is permitted

to spread it on Shabbat, and he did not issue a decree concerning it. How, then, do we say here that Rav prohibits it?

Tavut the trappers [

a man named Tavut, who spread traps for animals and birds ]

said that Shmuel said: This myrtle leaf [

a myrtle leaf ],

is prohibited

to roll it and make it into a spout, and to place it in the hole of the barrel so that the wine will flow through it.

What is the reason? —

Rav Yemar of Difti said: It is a decree because

he might come to prepare on Shabbat

a spout.

Rav Ashi said: It is a decree lest he pluck

a leaf from the myrtle for this purpose, which would be like fashioning a vessel.

And we inquire:

What is the difference between them

with regard to these two reasons?

And we answer:

There is a difference between them where there are many leaves that have been plucked and are lying there,

since according to Rav Ashi it is permitted: if one becomes damaged, he will take another and will not come to pluck one from the branch. But according to Rav Yemar, even in this case it is prohibited, lest people come to permit making a spout. [Tur, based on the Beit Yosef]

A folded sheet [

a sheet that is folded in the place of a pillow or cushion ]—

Rav prohibited

wrapping oneself in it as clothing and going out with it into the public domain on Shabbat.

And Shmuel permitted it.

And we explain: With regard

to

soft sheets,

everyone agrees that it is permitted,

because it is customary to wrap oneself in them for warmth, and this is a manner of clothing rather than a burden.

And

with

hard sheets,

everyone agrees that it is prohibited,

because this is not a manner of clothing, and it is like carrying out a burden into the public domain.

They disagree with regard to intermediate sheets [

of medium firmness ], which in principle are a manner of clothing. However,

the one who prohibits

issued a decree because they

appear like a burden,

since they are somewhat hard.

And the one who permits

holds that they

do not appear like a burden.

And the fact that

Rav prohibited it

was not stated explicitly

in his name;

rather, it was stated by implication

from an incident that occurred,

which was reported

as follows.

Rav once happened to come to a certain place where there was no room [

space ] in the house for him to sit there with the students.

He went out and sat in a karmelit [

a place that by Torah law is neither a public domain nor a private domain, but to which the Sages gave the stringencies of both ].

They brought him a folded sheet

of intermediate firmness so that he could sit on it,

but he did not sit

on it.

One who saw

this incident

reasoned

that Rav did not sit because Rav held

that a folded sheet is prohibited

to carry out.

That is not so.

For

indeed

Rav would proclaim: An intermediate sheet

is

permitted,

and no decree was issued concerning it.

And

the reason he did not sit upon them was

out of respect for our Rabbis

who were with him:

he did not sit upon it,

because they had nothing on which to sit and sat on the ground, and he did not wish to give himself greater honor than they.

And who were they, “

our Rabbis”? —

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi,

who were student-colleagues of Rav.

Mishna:

a.

One may place cooked food into a pit [

that contains no water ]

so that it will be protected,

and will not spoil from the heat.

And

likewise, one may place

the

vessel containing

the good water

for drinking

inside

a cold pool of water

that it may cool

the good water through it.

And

likewise, one may place

the

cold item

in the sun so that it will warm.

b.

One whose

[fell]

garments

fell

into water on the road may walk in them

while they are wet

and need not be concerned.

And when he

reaches the outer courtyard

of the city [which is a protected place], he

spreads them out in the sun

privately, in order to dry them.

But he may not

spread them

in view of the people,

so that they will not suspect him of having laundered them on Shabbat.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may place cooked food into a pit.

And we inquire:

Is it obvious

? What prohibition could there be in doing so?

And we answer:

Lest you say, let us issue a decree because

he might come

to level

the

depressions

in the ground of the pit, so that it would be flat and he could place the pot upon it, which would be a derivative of “plowing.”

It teaches us

that we do not issue such a decree.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the good water in the bad water.

And we inquire:

Is it obvious

? Why should we prohibit this?

And we answer: It is mentioned because of the latter clause.

The latter clause was necessary

to teach us that one may place

“the cold in the sun.”

And we ask again:

Is this also obvious

that it is permitted, even with something uncooked? After all, cooking in the sun does not involve the prohibition of “cooking.”

And we answer:

Lest you say, we should issue a decree lest he come to insulate it

also

in hot ashes,

and violate the prohibition of “cooking” [and even with cooked food they issued a decree concerning insulation, lest he stoke the coals].

It teaches us

that we do not issue such a decree.

We learned in the Mishna: One whose

garments fell into water on the road, and so on: he spreads them out in the sun, but not in view of the people.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Wherever the Sages prohibited

something

because of appearances [

so that people would not suspect him of a prohibition ],

it is prohibited even in the innermost rooms

to do it.

And we ask: But

we learned: “He spreads them out in the sun, but not in view of the people.”

This prohibition too is because of appearances, so that people will not suspect him of having laundered them on Shabbat. Evidently, they prohibited it for this reason only in public, but where people will not see him, it is permitted.

And we answer: It is a dispute of

tannaim. For

indeed

it was taught: He spreads them out in the sun, but not in view of the people.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon prohibit

it even when not in view of the people, and Rav ruled in accordance with their opinion.