Shabbat 146b — the Talmud in English

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

But if he came to add

to the existing one,

he may add.

For in this way the decree concerning a chicken coop does not apply. Because

adding—certainly, in a chicken coop one would not come to add. ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page position")

Because

in a large opening there is a danger that

a vermin

[a creeping creature], such as a marten or a rat, will enter and kill the chickens.

We learned above:

And some say: one may not add

to the existing opening.

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

sometimes he did not initially prepare it

with an opening of the proper size,

and he comes

on Shabbat

to widen it

[to enlarge it].

Rav Nahman expounded in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The halakha is according to the view of “some say.”

And one may not even add to the opening in order to widen it.

We learned above:

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

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: They taught

that one may pierce

only in a place

where the sealing of

the

old hole

is made

in order

to preserve

the smell of the wine, so that it should not evaporate. For since it is not a proper sealing, it is nothing. And it is considered as though the opening still exists. And now, when they pierce it again, it is not considered as making an opening.

But

if the sealing is made in order

to strengthen

the vessel, so that its wine should not flow out,

it is forbidden

to open it on Shabbat. For since it is a proper sealing, the old hole is nullified. And it is like one who is now making a new opening.

And we inquire concerning this:

What are the circumstances of “to preserve,”

and

what are the circumstances of “to strengthen”?

Rav Hisda said:

If the hole is

above

the place of

the wine, this is “to preserve.”

For the matter is evident: when he seals it, he seals only in order to preserve. For the wine cannot flow out from there, and he does not need to strengthen it.

But if the hole is

below

the place of

the wine,

then when he seals it,

this is “to strengthen,”

so that the wine should not flow out from there.

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

because the weight of the wine does not rest upon it. And in order that the wine should not flow out, any sort of sealing is sufficient for it. And the designation of an opening has still not been nullified from it by this.

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

For example, when it was pierced

close to the bottom of the barrel,

below

the place of

the sediment.

For since the entire weight of the wine rests there, he seals it with a proper sealing.

Abaye said to Rabba:

There is

a beraita that supports you.

For the designation of an opening is nullified only by a proper sealing.

For we hold that a courtyard is divided according to its openings. For if the courtyard is jointly owned by several householders whose houses open into the courtyard, when they come to divide the courtyard among themselves, they give each house four cubits in the courtyard along the width of the opening, for each and every opening that it has. It follows that a house that has several openings receives more in the courtyard than a house that has one opening. And 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 every opening whose sideposts [the beams around it] still exist has not had the designation of an opening nullified from it, even when it is sealed.

But if he

broke down its sideposts

and afterward sealed it, again

it does not have four cubits.

Since the designation of an opening has been nullified from it.

And likewise we hold that a house that has no opening, with a dead person inside it, is like a grave that imparts impurity for four cubits on all sides around it. And it is a rabbinic decree, lest one spread over the grave without paying attention to it.

And

a house

whose opening is

sealed

and with the dead person inside it

does not impart impurity

to

all around it.

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

But if he

broke down its sideposts

and sealed it, it

imparts impurity

for four cubits to

all around it.

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

Thus, wherever there is not a proper sealing, the designation of an opening still applies to it. And the same is true regarding the opening of a barrel on Shabbat.

A hollow tube

[a hollow reed] —

Rav forbade

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

And Shmuel permitted

doing so.

And we explain: if he

cuts

the reed

initially

in order to fit it to the measurement of the hole,

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

For “cutting” is a principal labor.

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

return

it to the hole,

everyone agrees that it is permitted.

When they disagree,

it is with regard to a hollow tube

that has already been cut

and matches the measurement of the hole, but it still

has not been fitted.

For it had not previously been placed in the hole in order to know whether it was of the proper measure or not.

The one who forbids decreed

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

perhaps

he will see that the reed does not match the hole, and

he will come

even

to cut it initially.

And the one who permits

holds that

we do not decree

thus.

And this dispute

is like

the dispute of

the tannaim

.

For it was taught:

One may not cut a tube

[a hollow reed]

on a Festival. And it goes without saying

that one may not cut it

on Shabbat.

For its prohibition is punishable by karet, and it is more stringent than a Festival, whose prohibition is only a negative commandment.

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

fell out, one may return it on Shabbat

to its place.

And it goes without saying

that one may return it

on a Festival.

And Rabbi Yashya is lenient.

And we inquire:

With regard to what is Rabbi Yashya speaking

[to what does he refer]?

If you say, the first clause,

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

For it is the making of a vessel

and is forbidden by Torah law.

Rather,

Rabbi Yashya is speaking

of the latter clause.

And he 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.

And in what do Rabbi Yashya and he disagree?

Rather,

certainly, it is with regard to a tube

that had been cut

before Shabbat,

and

still

had not been fitted—that is the difference between them. One

[the first Tanna]

holds, we decree

lest he come to cut it initially, like Rav.

And the other holds, we do not decree

thus, like Shmuel.

Rav Shisha son of Rav Idi expounded in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yashya.

And we do not decree lest he come to cut it initially.

We learned in the Mishna:

And if it was perforated,

he may not place wax upon it, because he is smoothing.

Thick oil

[thick oil] —

Rav forbade

spreading it on Shabbat.

And Shmuel permitted

spreading it.

And we explain: according to everyone, by Torah law there is no prohibition of “erasing” in it. For smoothing applies specifically to something extremely thick, such as wax. But

the one who forbids

holds,

we decree

concerning it

because

if we permit him, they will come also to permit spreading

wax. And the one who permits

holds,

we do not decree

so.

Rav Shmuel bar bar Hana 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 decree concerning it. And how do we say here that Rav forbade?

Tavut the fowler

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

said that Shmuel said: This myrtle leaf

[a leaf of myrtle],

is forbidden

to roll it and make it like a gutter, and to place it in the hole of a barrel, so that the wine should flow through it.

What is the reason? —

Rav Yemar of Difti said: A decree because of

lest he come to prepare on Shabbat

a gutter.

Rav Ashi said: A decree lest he pluck

a leaf from the myrtle for this purpose. And it is thus like making 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 when there are cut leaves lying there,

many leaves already cut there. For according to Rav Ashi, it is permitted, because if one becomes spoiled, he will take another and will not come to pluck from the branch. But according to Rav Yemar, even in this case it is forbidden, lest they permit making a gutter [a row, according to the Beit Yosef].

A folded sheet

[a sheet that they fold in the place of a pillow or cushion] —

Rav forbade

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

And Shmuel permitted.

And we explain:

With

soft sheets,

everyone agrees that it is permitted.

For it is customary to wrap oneself in it in order to become warm, and it is a manner of clothing, not a burden.

And

with

hard sheets,

everyone agrees that it is forbidden.

For this is not a manner of clothing. And it is like carrying out a burden into the public domain.

When they disagree, it is with regard to intermediate ones

[of average hardness]. For fundamentally they are a manner of clothing. But

the one who forbids

decrees because it

appears like a burden,

since they are somewhat hard.

And the one who permits

holds that it

does not appear like a burden.

And this that

Rav forbade

was not stated explicitly

in his name,

but from an inference

from an incident that occurred

it was stated

thus.

For Rav happened to come to a certain place where he had no room

[space] in the house 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, and the Sages gave it the stringencies of both].

They brought him a folded sheet

of intermediate quality, so that he could sit on it,

but he did not sit

on it.

One who saw

this incident

thought,

that Rav’s not sitting was because Rav held

that a folded sheet is forbidden

to carry out.

That is not so.

For

indeed

Rav used to proclaim: An intermediate sheet

is

permitted.

And nothing was decreed concerning it.

And

the reason he did not sit upon them was

because of the honor of our teachers,

who were with him;

he did not sit upon it.

For they had nothing upon which to sit, and they sat upon the ground. And he did not wish to consider himself superior to them.

And who were they,

“our teachers”? —

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi.

For they were fellow-students of Rav.

Mishna:

a.

One may place a cooked dish into a pit

[one that has no water]

so that it will be preserved,

and will not spoil because of the heat.

And

likewise one may place

the

vessel of

the good water

for drinking

inside

a cold collection of

the bad water, so that they will cool

the good water through it.

And

likewise one may place

the

cold thing in

the sun, so that it will warm.

b.

One whose

[fell]

garments

clothing

were soaked

while on the road in water, he walks in them

and need not be concerned,

and when he

reaches the outer courtyard

of the city [which is a protected place],

he spreads them in the sun

privately, in order to dry them.

But he may not

spread them

opposite the people,

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

Gemara:

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

And we inquire:

It is obvious.

What prohibition is there in the matter?

And we answer:

Lest you say, let us decree because of

that he may come

to level

the

hollows

in the ground of the pit, so that it will be flat and he will be able to place the pot upon it. And it would be a derivative of “plowing.”

It teaches us

that we do not decree thus.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the good water in the bad water.

And we inquire:

It is obvious.

Why should we forbid it?

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

the latter clause was necessary for it

to inform us that one may place

“the cold in the sun.”

And we ask again:

This too is obvious

that it is permitted, even with something that is not cooked. For cooking in the sun does not involve “cooking.”

And we answer:

Lest you say, let us decree lest he come to insulate it

also

in embers

and transgress the prohibition of “cooking” [and even concerning a cooked thing they decreed regarding insulation, lest he stoke the coals].

It teaches us

that we do not decree thus.

We learned in the Mishna: One whose

garments became soaked in water on the road, and so on: he spreads them in the sun, but not opposite the people.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Wherever the Sages forbade

some matter

because of appearance to the eye

[so that they should not suspect him of a prohibition],

it is forbidden even in the innermost rooms

to do it.

And we challenge: But

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

And this prohibition too is because of appearance to the eye, so that they should not suspect him of having laundered them on Shabbat. Evidently, they forbade it for this reason only in public. But in a place where they will not see him, it is permitted.

And we answer: It is a dispute of

tannaim. For

indeed

it was taught: He spreads them in the sun, but not opposite the people.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon forbid

even not opposite the people. And Rav ruled according to their view.