Shabbat 48a (מח.) — the Talmud in English

and consequently the heat rose to the pot .

Rabbi Zeira said

with regard to raising heat,

the raising of heat from the refuse to the pot above it, that specifically olive refuse raises heat upward, because

olive refuse raises heat.

But

sesame refuse does not raise heat.

But with regard to insulating within the refuse, there is no difference between olive refuse and sesame refuse: it is always prohibited to insulate in it.

Rabba and Rabbi Zeira happened to arrive

at

the house of

the exilarch.

They saw a certain servant place a small jug of water [a small vessel filled with cold water]

over the mouth

of

a kettle

filled with hot water.

Rabba rebuked him.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabba: Why did you rebuke him? Is it not permitted to do so?

What is different from a hot-water urn,

which we learned at the end of our chapter may be placed on Shabbat

atop another hot-water urn

that is resting on the fire?

on top of a hot-water urn

that had previously been placed on the fire?

He said to him

He said to him

Rabba: There, even the upper hot-water urn contains hot water. The lower one does not heat the upper one; it merely preserves its heat,

keeping the water from becoming cold. In such a case this is not considered cooking. But in the incident

here,

the servant placed a jug of cold water on the kettle. Thus, the kettle

was producing heat

in the water in the jug .

This is therefore complete cooking .

Afterward he saw Rabba the servant of the exilarch spread a headcloth over the mouth of a jug, and place a ladle [a vessel used to draw wine from the jug] upon it.

is generating

the heat of the water in the vessel . And this is complete cooking .

Rabba rebuked him.

Rav Zeira said to Rabba:

Why

did you rebuke him? What prohibition is there in this act?

He said to him: Now,

wait, and

you will see why it is prohibited to do this.

In the end, he saw him wringing it [he was squeezing the headcloth] to remove the water absorbed in it because of the ladle that had been placed upon it. It now became clear why Rabba had rebuked him: initially, he had been prohibited from placing the cloth over the jug and placing the ladle upon it, lest he come to squeeze it.

He said to him,

Rav Zeira:

What is the difference

between spreading a cloth over the mouth of a jug, which you prohibited,

and a cover-cloth [a garment specially made to spread over a vat], regarding which Rava says below [139b] that it is permitted to place it over a vat, and we are not concerned that he might come to squeeze it because of the liquid from the vat that it absorbed?

Rav Zeira:

What difference is there

between spreading a cloth over the mouth of a jug, which you prohibited,

and a cover

[a cloth made especially to spread over a vat] that Rava later said [139b] may be placed over a vat, without concern that one might come to wring liquid out of it after it has absorbed liquid from the vat?

In the end, he saw him squeezing it [he was squeezing it] the cloth, removing from the cloth the water absorbed in it because of the ladle that he had placed upon it. And it was now revealed why Rabba had rebuked him: at the outset it had been forbidden for him to place the cloth upon the jug and place the ladle upon it, lest it come to squeezing.

He said to him

Rav Zeira:

What is different

about spreading a cloth over the mouth of a jug, which you prohibited,

from a cloth-cover [a garment specially made to spread over a tub], concerning which Rava says below [139b] that it is permitted to place it over the tub, and we are not concerned lest he come to squeeze it from the liquid absorbed in it from the tub?

He said to him

Rabba:

There—

a person is not particular

about

it—

the parnaka, because he does not care about the water absorbed by it, as it is made for that purpose. Therefore, there is no concern that he will come to squeeze it. But

here,

with a cloth covering the mouth of a barrel,

he is particular about it

that water not be absorbed by it. Therefore, we are concerned that he may come to squeeze it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may not

insulate

with straw

or with grape skins or with soft fibers. But one may insulate with them when they are dry.

Rav Adda bar Mattana asked Abaye: Dry fibers

Rabbeinu Tam

with which one insulated a pot—

what is the halakha regarding moving them on Shabbat?

Do they carry the prohibition of muktze, or not?

For ordinary soft fibers, it is certainly prohibited to move them because of the prohibition of muktze, since they are designated for making felt, and are set aside exclusively for this use. But these fibers with which he insulated the pot may have ceased, from the moment he designated them for insulation, to be intended for their usual work, and from then on they have the status of a utensil. Therefore, they would be permitted to move, like any ordinary utensil.

He said to him

Abaye:

And just because he does not have a basket

of straw

in which to insulate, and was forced to insulate with these fibers, should he therefore

stand and abandon a basket of fibers?!

That is certainly not so. Rather, even though he insulates with fibers, he does not abandon them; that is, he does not relinquish their designation for making felt from them. They are still intended for their usual work, to be made into felt, and therefore the prohibition of muktze still applies to them.

And we prove this:

Let us say that this supports

Abaye, from the following beraita:

One may insulate with bundles of wool [

wool that is still in the state in which it was shorn],

with fleeces of wool [

fluffed wool],

with strips of purple wool [

combed and dyed wool],

and with soft fibers.

But

one may not move them

on Shabbat.

It follows that even after one has insulated with them, they are still intended for their usual work and are prohibited because of muktze.

And we reject this:

If it is because of this

beraita—

it is not relevant;

nothing can be proven from it. For it may be said that

this is what it is saying:

One may insulate with soft fibers.

But if he has not insulated with them,

and they are still intended for their usual work,

one may not move them.

But when he has insulated with them, they are always permitted to move, because they are no longer intended for their usual work.

And we challenge this:

If so, what is it teaching us?

Is it not obvious that when he has not insulated with them, they are muktze?

And we answer: Even when he has not insulated with them, it is a novel point that they are prohibited to move. For

lest you say that

since

the fibers are suitable

for

for reclining [

leaning],

upon them,

he does not set them aside, it therefore teaches us that nevertheless they are muktze.

Rav Ḥisda permitted returning

on Shabbat

fluffed wool [

soft fibers]

to a mattress [

a pillow] from which they had fallen, and he did not consider this as making a utensil.

Rav Ḥanan bar Ḥisda raised an objection to Rav Ḥisda:

But it was taught in a beraita:

One may open the neck opening [

which was tied during its laundering, as it is customary for launderers to tie it]

on Shabbat.

But

if the garment has not yet been made with a neck opening,

one may not open

a neck opening in it on Shabbat, because by doing so he completes the garment. He is liable for repairing a utensil, which is a derivative of makeh be-patish .

And one may not place the soft fibers neither into a mattress nor into a cushion on a Festival. And it is not necessary

to say

that one may not place them

on Shabbat.

For Shabbat is more stringent than a Festival, as its prohibition is one whose punishment is stoning.

This is difficult for Rav Ḥisda, who permits returning them.

And we answer:

There is no difficulty. This

statement that says “one may not place [them]” is referring

to

pillows and cushions

that are new,

in which the soft fibers had never previously been placed. Only now is he making them into pillows and cushions.

And

this

that Rav Ḥisda permitted returning them refers

to

pillows

that are old.

These fibers had already been inside them, but had fallen out. The pillow had already acquired the status of a utensil before he returned the fibers to it, and he is not now making it into a utensil.

It was taught likewise: One may not place the soft fibers neither

into a mattress nor into a cushion on a Festival, and it is not necessary to say on Shabbat.

But if they

fell out—

one may return them on Shabbat. And it is not necessary to say

that it is permitted to return them

on a Festival.

For its prohibition is less stringent than the prohibition of Shabbat, as it involves only a negative commandment.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: One who opens the neck opening

of a shirt in which an opening had never yet been made ,

on Shabbat, is liable to bring a sin-offering.

Because this is the completion of the shirt’s manufacture, and he is now making it into a utensil. This is a derivative of makeh be-patish.