Shabbat 29a (כט.) — the Talmud in English

But Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

A gentile hollowed out a kav-measure

by hollowing out a piece of wood on a Festival, so that an amputee could place his leg into it [as we learned below, on 65b: “An amputee may go out with his wooden leg”]—

a Jew may fuel a fire with it on the Festival

in his oven.

And we challenge this:

But why

is it permitted? Is it not that

it is nolad

? For the piece of wood became a utensil on the Festival, and did you not say that Rav Adda bar Ahava holds that nolad is forbidden?

And we answer: Rav Adda

was

explaining

the statements

of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva

when he said that nolad is forbidden; but he himself holds that nolad is permitted.

He does not hold that way himself.

Rava said: This is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer

who says that one may not kindle with a wick that has not been singed:

because one may not kindle

the Shabbat lamp

with a wick that has not been singed, nor with rags that have not been singed,

since they do not burn properly. [According to Rava’s reasoning, the Mishna applies every Shabbat, and not only when a Festival occurs on the eve of Shabbat.]

And we challenge this:

But concerning that which Rav Yosef taught,

I used to learn from my teachers that a garment containing a measure of

three by three

fingerbreadths

exactly—

for what halakhic purpose

did he teach it? But Rava gave a different reason.

And we answer:

It was stated with regard to ritual impurity

.

As we learned

in tractate Kelim: The measure of

three by three

fingerbreadths

that they stated

for a garment with regard to its susceptibility to ritual impurity is

exclusive of the seam allowance

—the part folded around the stitching. The garment must contain a measure of three by three fingerbreadths apart from the seam allowance in order to be fit for making a patch.

Those are the words of Rabbi Shimon.

And the Sages say:

The measure that they stated is

three by three exactly.

Even if, when it is sewn and its edges are folded, it will be smaller than three by three, it is nevertheless considered a garment.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One may fuel a fire with utensils

on a Festival,

but one may not fuel a fire with broken utensils

that broke on the Festival, since they are nolad,

those are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Shimon permits

fueling a fire with broken utensils.

One may fuel a fire with date pits.

But if

he ate the dates, he may not fuel a fire with their pits,

because of nolad,

those are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Shimon permits.

One may fuel a fire with walnut shells.

Shulchan Aruch rules (section, 7) that nuts eaten on Yom Tov itself, it is forbidden to kindle with their shells. And he wrote Rema that one should not kindle with nuts and almonds themselves unless they are still in their shells, and the reason is that they are fit to be used for kindling along with their shells. And the Mishnah Berurah brought that, according to the Yerushalmi, it is permitted to kindle even with foods.

If he ate them, he may not fuel a fire with their shells; those are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Shimon permits.

And it is necessary

to teach all these cases [utensils, dates, and walnuts].

For if he had taught the first case alone,

where they disagree over whether it is permitted to fuel a fire with broken utensils, I would have said:

In that case Rabbi Yehuda says

that it is forbidden, and his reason is

because initially

it was a

utensil,

but now, after it broke on the Festival, it is

a broken utensil, and it is nolad and therefore forbidden.

But

date

pits, which initially

were

pits, and now

too they are

pits,

and nothing new has occurred to them,

I would say that it is perfectly acceptable

to fuel a fire with them, since they are not nolad; therefore, it teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda forbids this case as well.

And if he had taught

their dispute concerning

pits alone, I would have said

that Rabbi Yehuda considers them nolad because

initially

they were

covered

by the date,

but now,

after he ate the dates, they are

exposed, and that is why Rabbi Yehuda considers them nolad. [See Tosafot, s.v. “If he ate them,” who added that the pits serve the food—that they protect it.]

But walnut

But walnut shells, which initially

before he ate them

were exposed,

they are visible,

and now,

after he ate them, they are also

exposed, I would say that it is perfectly acceptable

to fuel a fire with them and they are not nolad; therefore, it is

necessary

to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda forbids this case as well.

And this statement of Rav,

which teaches us that according to Rabbi Yehuda one may not fuel a fire with their pits,

was not stated explicitly, but was stated by inference

from an incident that occurred;

it was stated.

For Rav ate dates

on a weekday and threw the pits

into the furnace

of the oven.

Rabbi Hiyya said to him: Son of noblemen!

[Son of distinguished people.]

In a corresponding case on a Festival

it is forbidden

to do this.

A dilemma was raised before them: Did he

accept this from him

as the halakha,

or did he not accept it from him?

Come and hear: When Rav came to Babylonia, he ate dates

on a Festival

and threw the pits to an animal

[he threw the pits so that an animal would eat them].

Is it not referring to Persian dates,

which are fully ripe, so that no edible matter remained on the pit,

and

we can infer from this that he

did not accept

that they were nolad?

And we reject this:

No; it is referring to Aramean dates,

which were not entirely ripe,

since they are fit together with their mother

—because remnants of food remained on the pit that were fit for human consumption, they were not nolad. [And one cannot resolve from this what Rav’s position is concerning pits on which no food at all remains, whether they are nolad or not.]

Rav Shmuel bar bar Hanna said to Rav Yosef: According to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one may fuel a fire with utensils but may not fuel a fire with broken utensils,

how is it permitted to kindle with utensils? Is it not that

once he has kindled with them a little,

they break because of the fire,

they become broken utensils?

And when he turns them over

in the oven,

he is turning them over in violation of the prohibition,

since now they are nolad and forbidden!?

And we explain:

He acted in accordance with Rav Mattana’s ruling.

For Rav Mattana said that Rav said: If wood that fell from a palm tree into an oven on a Festival

—and it is muktze since it was attached to the tree before the Festival—

one adds

to it

wood

that was

prepared

before the Festival, and nullifies it through the majority,

and then fuels the fire with it.

Here too, when he fuels a fire with utensils, when he wishes to turn them over in the oven he must add prepared wood and nullify the utensils through the majority.

Rav Hamnuna said: Here

the Mishna is discussing a garment

of less than three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths

we are dealing

with the lenient laws of scraps of cloth, which are not important to him and are of little value in his eyes.

This is what they taught here,

and they disagree concerning susceptibility to ritual impurity. [The singeing and folding mentioned in the Mishna are not meant literally.]

And Rabbi Eliezer proceeds

in the Mishna

according to his reasoning, and Rabbi Akiva

in the Mishna proceeds

according to his reasoning.

As we learned in tractate Kelim: A scrap of cloth that is

less than three by three, which one designated

[set aside]

as a stopper

to seal

with it

the holes of

the bathhouse, or

which he set aside

to grasp

[hold]

the pot with it, or

which he set aside

to wipe the millstones with it

to remove the dust on them—is

impure whether it was prepared for this purpose or not; those are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Whether it was prepared for this purpose or not—

it is pure.

Rabbi Akiva says: If it was prepared for this purpose it is impure, but if it was not prepared for this purpose—

it is pure.

And now we explain their dispute.

And Ulla said—and some say that Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Everyone agrees

that if he

threw it

this garment

into a garbage heap—

everyone agrees that it is pure,

for he thereby nullified its status as a garment.