Shabbat 29a — the Talmud in English

But Rav Adda bar Ahava said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

A gentile hollowed out a leg-shaped wooden support,

carving it on a Festival from a piece of wood so that an amputee could place his lower leg in it [as we learned below, 65b: an amputee may go out with his wooden leg]—

a Jew may burn it as fuel on the Festival

in his oven.

And we raise a difficulty:

But why

is it permitted?

It is a newly created object!

For the piece of wood became a utensil on the Festival, whereas you said that Rav Adda bar Ahava holds that a newly created object is prohibited?

And we answer: Rav Adda

to

explain

their words—

he was referring to the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva

that a newly created object is prohibited, but he himself holds that a newly created object is permitted.

He does not hold that way.

Rava said: This is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s view

that one may not light with a wick that has not been singed:

because one may not light

a Shabbat lamp

with a wick that has not been singed, nor with rags that have not been singed, since they do not burn well.

According to Rava’s explanation, the Mishna is discussing every Shabbat, and not only a Festival that occurs on the eve of Shabbat.

And we raise a difficulty:

But regarding what Rav Yosef taught,

I used to learn from my teachers: A garment that contains an area measuring

three by three

fingerbreadths

exactly—

for what halakhic purpose

did he teach this? 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 regarding its susceptibility to ritual impurity is

apart from the folded hem—

the part folded around the seam. The garment must contain an area of three by three fingerbreadths apart from the folded hem in order to be fit for making a patch,

the words of Rabbi Shimon.

And the Sages say:

The measure they stated is

exactly three by three.

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

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One may burn utensils as fuel

on the Festival,

but one may not burn broken utensils as fuel

that broke on the Festival, since they are a newly created object,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Shimon permits

burning broken utensils as fuel.

One may burn date pits as fuel.

But if one

ate them, one may not burn their pits as fuel,

because they are a newly created object,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Shimon permits.

One may burn walnuts as fuel.

.

If one ate them, one may not burn their shells as fuel, the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Shimon permits.

And it is necessary

to teach us all these cases—utensils, dates, and walnuts.

For had it taught us the first case

in which they disagree about whether it is permitted to burn broken utensils as fuel, I might have said:

In that case Rabbi Yehuda says

that it is prohibited, and his reason is

because originally

it was a

utensil,

but now, having broken on the Festival, it is

a broken utensil, and it is a newly created object and therefore prohibited.

But

date

pits, which originally

were

pits, and now

they are also

pits,

and nothing new has occurred to them,

I might have said that it is entirely proper

to burn them, since they are not a newly created object. Therefore, it teaches us that Rabbi Yehuda prohibits this case as well.

And had it taught us

their dispute regarding

pits, I might have said

that Rabbi Yehuda considers them a newly created object because

originally

they were

covered

by the date,

but now,

after one ate the dates,

they are exposed, and for that reason Rabbi Yehuda considers them a newly created object. [See Tosafot, s.v. “If one ate them,” which added that the pits serve the food, as they protect it.]

But walnut

shells, which originally

before one ate them

were exposed

and visible,

and now,

after one ate them, they are also

exposed; I might have said that it is entirely proper

to burn them, and that they are not a newly created object. Therefore, it is

necessary

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

And this statement of Rav,

which teaches that according to Rabbi Yehuda one may not burn date pits as fuel,

was not stated explicitly, but was stated by implication

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 distinguished ancestors! [A0131]Son of great people.

[Son of distinguished people.]

In a corresponding case on the Festival—

it is prohibited

to do this.

It was raised as a dilemma: Did he

accept it from him

as the proper legal ruling,

or did he not accept it from him?

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

on the Festival

and threw the pits to the animals [A0142]so that an animal would eat them.

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

What, is it not referring to Persian dates,

which were fully ripe and had no food remaining on the pit,

and

can it not be inferred from this that he

did not accept

the ruling and did not consider the pits a newly created object?

And we reject this:

No, it is referring to Aramaic dates,

which were not fully ripe,

since they are fit together with their mother.

Because remnants of food remained on the pit and were fit for human consumption, the pits were not a newly created object. [No conclusion can be drawn from this about Rav’s view concerning pits on which no food at all remains, whether they are a newly created object or not.]

Rav Shmuel bar bar Hana said to Rav Yosef: According to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that one may burn utensils as fuel but may not burn broken utensils as fuel,

how is it permitted to light with utensils?

Once he has lit a little with them,

they become broken because of the fire,

they are broken utensils.

And when he turns them over

in the oven,

he is turning them over in violation of the prohibition,

since they have now become a newly created object and are prohibited!

And we explain:

He acted in accordance with the ruling of Rav Mattana.

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

and it is set-aside property because it was attached to the tree before the Festival,

he adds

to it

wood

that was

prepared

before the Festival, and nullifies it through the majority,

and burns it.

Here too, when he burns utensils as fuel, 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

in the Mishna,

we are dealing with less than three

handbreadths

by three

handbreadths

in area.

The lenient laws concerning scraps of cloth, which are not important to a person and are considered insignificant by him,

are taught here,

and they disagree here regarding susceptibility to ritual impurity. [The singeing and folding mentioned in the Mishna are not essential to the case.]

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 piece of cloth that is

smaller than three by three, which one designated [A0192]set aside

[set aside]

to serve as a stopper

to seal

with it

the holes in

the bathhouse, or

which one designated

to grasp [A0200]hold

[hold]

the pot with it, or

which one designated

to wipe the millstones with it

to remove the dust on them—

whether it was prepared for use or not prepared for use, it is susceptible to ritual impurity, the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

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

it is pure.

Rabbi Akiva says: If it was prepared for use, it is susceptible to ritual impurity, but if it was not prepared for use—

it is pure.

And now we explain their dispute.

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

that if one

threw

this piece of cloth

into a garbage heap—

everyone agrees that it is pure,

since he nullified its status as a garment.