Shabbat 157a — the Talmud in English

d

We learned: One may not split

wood

on a Festival

for the purpose of heating

from beams

designated for building.

And

likewise

not from the beam

that broke on the Festival. And although now it stands for heating, it is muktze. For it was not prepared for this between sunset and nightfall. And this is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is muktze, and requires preparation between sunset and nightfall.

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan, he

the Mishna

taught it in accordance with Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda,

and not as an anonymous Mishna.

And further we raise an objection:

Come and hear: One may begin

to heat

with the pile of straw

on a Festival, even though he has not yet taken anything from this pile for the purpose of heating.

But one may not

begin to heat

with wood that is in the rear area

[the open area behind the house], which he prepared there for the autumn days.

And it might enter one’s mind that it is speaking of rotten straw, which is not fit for the consumption of an animal, but is designated for heating. But wood that is in the rear area, which is not designated for heating, is forbidden because it is not prepared. And it is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. And this Mishna was taught anonymously. And it is difficult: Rabbi Yohanan, who says, “The halakha is in accordance with an anonymous Mishna,” why did he rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

And we answer:

There, with

wood of

cedars and firs

[male cedar and female cedar], which are designated for building,

it is muktze due to monetary loss

they are. For if he uses them for heating, there is thereby a loss of the wood. And with this muktze

even Rabbi Shimon concedes

that it is forbidden, for it is like pushing it away with his hands.

And further we raise an objection:

Come and hear: One may neither water nor slaughter the

animals

of the wilderness

[which always graze in the pasture and spend the night within the boundary] on a Festival. For it is forbidden to trouble oneself with their food, since their food is not upon you.

And likewise one may not slaughter them, because they are muktze. For they were not prepared between sunset and nightfall for eating on the Festival.

But one may water and slaughter the

animals

of the house

[the domestic animals]. For their food is upon you. And they are also permitted for slaughter, because they are not muktze, since they are designated for eating from between sunset and nightfall.

And this anonymous Mishna too is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. And why did Rabbi Yohanan rule in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan found another anonymous

[anonymous Mishna]

one, which goes in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. And he ruled in accordance with it.

For we learned:

As we learned:

Beit Shammai say: One may lift

by hand on Shabbat

from upon the table, bones and peels.

And although the bones are hard and are not fit for dogs, and walnut shells too are not fit for anything, it is permitted to move them. For Beit Shammai do not hold of muktze.

And Beit Hillel say:

One may not move them by hand, but

he removes the board

[the table-board, which has the status of a vessel and is not muktze]

in its entirety, and shakes it

free of the bones and peels.

And

concerning this

Rav Nahman

said: We do not rely upon this Mishna as it was taught. Rather, the opinions in it are reversed.

And we have only this: Beit Shammai

forbid lifting bones and peels, because they hold of muktze

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda. And Beit Hillel

permit, because they do not hold of muktze,

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And the words of Beit Hillel are considered like an anonymous Mishna [for the words of Beit Shammai in a place where Beit Hillel rules are not considered a Mishna]. And therefore Rabbi Yohanan ruled in accordance with them.

And

Rav Aha and Ravina dispute concerning it

with regard to this halakha.

One said: In all

the halakhot of

the entire Shabbat

we hold that

the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

except for muktze due to disgust.

For Rabbi Shimon does not hold that there is a prohibition of muktze in this matter. And we do not hold in accordance with him in this matter, but in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids it.

And we examine it:

And what is it “‘muktze due to disgust’”?

And we answer:

An

old

earthenware

lamp.

For after they lit with it, it became disgusting.

And one said: Even

with muktze due to disgust, the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

for there is no prohibition of muktze in this.

Except for muktze due to prohibition,

for in this matter we do not hold in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who permits it.

And we examine it:

And what is it “‘muktze due to prohibition’”?

And we answer:

A

lamp in which they lit on

the eve of

that Shabbat.

For between sunset and nightfall, while the lamp was burning, it was forbidden to move it because of the prohibition of extinguishing on Shabbat. And since it was set aside on the eve of Shabbat, it was set aside for the entire day.

But with muktze due to monetary loss, even Rabbi Shimon concedes

that it is forbidden to move.

As

we learned: All vessels may be moved on Shabbat, except for the large saw

[the craftsmen’s knife]

.

For the saw is made with teeth, in order to cut wood with it. And if he uses it for other things, its teeth will break and it will suffer loss.

And likewise one may not move

the plowshare-pin,

because it is muktze from other uses, so that it should not be damaged. And anything that one sets aside so as not to incur monetary loss is forbidden to move according to everyone.

Mishna:

The husband and the father may annul

the

vows

of their wives and daughters

on Shabbat.

And one may ask

a sage to permit

vows

on Shabbat—vows

that

require dissolution

for the sake of Shabbat.

For example, if she vowed not to eat today, so that it is necessary to dissolve them on Shabbat itself, because of the enjoyment of Shabbat.

But vows whose dissolution does not involve a need for Shabbat are forbidden to dissolve on Shabbat, since he can dissolve them after Shabbat. And we do not trouble ourselves on Shabbat without purpose [Ran].

And one may stop up the light

[seal the window] on Shabbat. And we do not say that this is like adding to the building. And this is in accordance with the Rabbis above, who permit stopping up the window with a stopper prepared for this before Shabbat.

And one may measure

on Shabbat

the cloth

[a piece of fabric] that touched impurity, to know whether it contains three by three fingerbreadths and is fit to contract impurity, or not.

And one may measure

on Shabbat

the ritual bath,

to know whether it contains forty seahs and is valid, or not. And although measuring is forbidden on Shabbat, these measurements, which are for a mitzva, are permitted.

And there was an incident in the days of the father of Rabbi Tzadok and in the days of Abba Shaul ben Batnit, when they stopped up the light

[the window]

with a jug

[an earthenware flask],

and tied the shard

[an earthenware vessel]

with palm fiber, to know whether there was an opening of a handbreadth in the tub.

And the Gemara explains it.

And from their words we learned that one may stop up

the window on Shabbat.

And

from the fact that they measured the tub, we infer that one may

measure

on Shabbat a measurement required for the laws of impurity.

And

from the fact that they tied the shard, we infer that

one may tie on Shabbat

a tie that is not permanent, even initially.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One may annul vows on Shabbat, and one may ask about vows that are for the need of Shabbat.

They raised a dilemma before them:

With regard to what do we require “vows that are for the need of Shabbat”? Shall we say

that annulment

is permitted

both

when it is

for the sake of

Shabbat

and when it is

not

for the sake of

Shabbat? For the father and the husband annul the vow only on the day they hear it. And when the vow becomes known to them on Shabbat, if they do not annul it that day, they will no longer be able to annul it tomorrow.

And

specifically with regard to

asking

a sage is it taught that specifically

for the sake of

Shabbat itself

there is no

[restriction], and it is permitted to ask about it on Shabbat. But if it is

not for the sake of

Shabbat,

he may not

ask about it on Shabbat, but should wait until tomorrow.

And that is why the tanna separated them

the annulment and the asking

from one another,

and did not teach them in one statement. And he mentioned “that are for the need of Shabbat” only with regard to asking, and not with regard to annulment.

Or perhaps, annulment too, for the sake of

Shabbat

there is no

[restriction], and it is permitted. But

when not for the sake of it, he may not

annul.

And the fact that he separated them

the annulment and the asking

from one another,

and did not mention them in one statement, is

because

for

annulment a court is not needed

[a sage], but the husband and the father annul. In contrast,

asking,

which

requires a court.

And we resolve it:

Come and hear, for the junior scholar of the school of Rav Pappa taught: One may annul vows on Shabbat, for the sake of Shabbat.

Infer from this that even annulment is specifically

for the sake of Shabbat, yes.

But

when not for the sake of Shabbat, no

one may annul.

Another version: They raised a dilemma before them,

with regard to this that we require that it be

for the sake of

Shabbat:

is it taught with regard to both of them,

both annulment and asking,

and when not for the sake of it, no

one may annul and one may not ask? For even annulment can be performed after Shabbat.

Evidently, “the day of his hearing,” which is written

with regard to

the annulment of vows,

is not only that day, but until

twenty-four hours

[twenty-four hours] from the hearing of the vow.

Or perhaps, when it teaches

in the Mishna that we require that it be

for the sake of

Shabbat,

with regard to asking

a sage

it teaches

this.

But the annulment of vows is permitted even when not for the sake of Shabbat, because after Shabbat he will no longer be able to annul it, since he will no longer be within “the day of his hearing.”

Evidently, “the day of his hearing,” which is written

with regard to

the annulment of vows,

is only

all

that

day

alone, until evening, and no more.

And we resolve it:

Come and hear, for Rabbi Zutra of the school of Rav Pappi taught: One may annul vows on Shabbat for the sake of Shabbat.

Infer from this:

For the sake of Shabbat, yes; when not for the sake of Shabbat, no

one may annul.

Evidently, he is able to perform

that he can perform

the annulment of vows

for the entire

twenty-four hours. And therefore, if it is not needed for Shabbat, he should wait until after Shabbat and annul it.

Therefore, if it is not needed for Shabbat, he should wait until after Shabbat and annul it.

Rav Ashi said: But did we not learn

the opposite?

For we learned:

The annulment of vows is for the entire day

on which he heard the vow.

And this matter can be lenient and stringent.

For sometimes he has a great amount of time to annul, and sometimes little.

How so?

She vowed

the woman

on Friday night,

and then the husband heard the vow,

the husband annuls

the vow

on the night of

that

Shabbat and

the entire

day of Shabbat until it becomes dark.

For the day follows the night.

And even if

she vowed at nightfall

[shortly before the conclusion of Shabbat],

he annuls until it becomes dark. For if he did not annul

by then,

once it became dark

he

can no longer annul.

And although only a short time has passed since the vow, it is no longer said of him, “on the day of his hearing.” For it depends not on twenty-four hours, but only on that day. And it is not as we inferred from what the junior scholar of the school of Rav Pappi taught, that the annulment of vows is for twenty-four hours.

And we answer: It is a dispute of

tannaim.

For it was taught: The annulment of vows is for the entire day.

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon said:

The annulment of vows is for the entire

twenty-four hours

.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may ask about vows

that are for the sake of Shabbat.

They raised a dilemma before them:

This matter, that one may ask about these vows on Shabbat, is specifically

when he did not have leisure

to ask about them before Shabbat?

Or perhaps, even if he had leisure

before Shabbat, since he did not ask, he may ask on Shabbat, for it is a need of Shabbat.

And we resolve it:

Come and hear:

There was an incident

in which the Sages attended to Rav Zutra, son of Rav Zeira,

who had taken a vow and needed it dissolved because of the need of Shabbat,

and the Sages permitted him

the vow

even though he had leisure

to ask about it before Shabbat.

We learned in the Mishna: And there was an incident in the days of the father of Rabbi Tzadok and Abba Shaul ben Batnit,

when they stopped up the light with a jug and tied the shard with palm fiber,

to know whether there was an opening of a handbreadth in the tub, or not.