Shabbat 48a — the Talmud in English

And from the fact that he mentioned specifically olive waste, there is nothing to prove. For Rabbi Zeira was speaking of one who insulated in a basket, and not inside the waste itself. Rather, he placed the basket upon the waste , and through this the heat rises to the pot .

And Rabbi Zeira said:

concerning raising heat,

the raising of heat from the waste to the pot above it, specifically waste raises heat upward, because

olive waste raises heat.

But

sesame waste does not raise heat.

But concerning insulating inside the waste, there is no difference between olive waste and sesame waste; it is always forbidden to insulate in it.

Rabba and Rabbi Zeira happened to come

upon

the house of

the Exilarch.

They saw a certain slave place a small vessel of cold water [a small vessel full of cold water]

of

upon the mouth

above the opening

of a kettle

full of hot water.

Rabba rebuked him [he scolded him]

Rabbi Zeira said

Rabba.

Rabbi Zeira said to him

to Rabba: Why did you rebuke him? Is it not permitted to do this? For

what is different from a kettle,

as we learned at the end of our chapter, that it is permitted to place it on Shabbat

upon a kettle

that is resting upon the fire?

He said to him

Rabba:

There,

even in the upper kettle there is hot water. And the lower one does not heat the upper one, but merely

preserves its condition,

preserving the heat of the water so that it will not cool. And in any such case this is not considered cooking. But in the incident

here,

the slave placed a vessel of cold water upon the kettle. And it emerges that the kettle

is generating

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

Then he again saw him

Rabba saw the slave of the Exilarch

spread a headcloth [a head covering]

Rav Zeira said

over the mouth of a jug [a pitcher],

Why

and place a ladle [a vessel with which wine is drawn from the pitcher]

He said to him: Now

upon it.

Rabba rebuked him.

Rav Zeira said to him

to Rabba:

Why

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

He said to him: Now

wait, and

you will see

why it is forbidden to do this.

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 does not mind

a cloth used as a stopper,

because of it, since 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 wring it out.

But

here,

with a cloth placed over the mouth of a barrel,

he does mind because of it, because he does not want water to be absorbed by it. Therefore, we are concerned that he may come to wring it out.

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 [a pot]

with straw

or with grape seeds or with flax fibers. But one may insulate with them when they are dry.

Rav Adda bar Mattana asked Abaye: Dry flax fibers

with which one insulated a pot—

what is the ruling regarding moving them on Shabbat?

Do they have the prohibition of muktzeh, meaning that they were set aside and may not be moved on Shabbat, or not?

Ordinary flax fibers are certainly prohibited to move because of the prohibition of muktzeh, since they are designated for making linen cloth and are set aside exclusively for this use. But these fibers, with which he insulated the pot, may have ceased to be designated for their original use from the moment he designated them for insulation, and they now have the status of an implement. Therefore, they would be permitted to move, like any ordinary utensil.

He said to him

Abaye:

Just because he does not have a basket

of straw

to insulate with, and was therefore forced to insulate with these fibers, does that mean that he will

stand by and renounce ownership of a basketful of fibers?!

That is certainly not so. Rather, even when he insulates with the fibers, he does not renounce ownership of them; that is, he does not give up their intended use for making linen cloth. They are still designated for that purpose, and therefore the prohibition of muktzeh still applies to them.

And we seek to prove this:

Come and hear a proof supporting Abaye

from the following beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

One may insulate with bundles of wool

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

with tufts of wool

[fluffed wool],

with strips of purple wool

[combed and dyed wool],

and with flax fibers.

But

one may not move them

on Shabbat.

Evidently, even after one has insulated with them, they remain designated for their original use and are prohibited because of muktzeh.

And we reject this proof:

If that is the reason, the

beraita—

it is not relevant; nothing can be proved from it. For it is possible to say that

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

this is what it means:

One may insulate with flax fibers.

But if he did not insulate with them,

and they are still designated for their original use,

one may not move them. But when he has insulated with them, they are always permitted to move, because they are no longer designated for their original use.

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 ask:

If so, what is the point of stating this?

Is it not obvious that when he has not insulated with them, they are set aside and may not be moved?

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

one might have thought that, since

since

the fibers are fit

for

sitting

leaning],

on them

[reclining], he would not set them aside. The beraita therefore teaches us that nevertheless they are muktzeh.

Rav Hisda permitted returning

on Shabbat

flax fibers

[fibers]

to a cushion

[a cushion from which they had fallen], and he did not consider this the completion or repair of an implement.

Rav Hanan bar Hisda raised an objection to Rav Hisda:

But it was taught in a beraita:

One may open the neck opening

[which had been tied during laundering, as launderers customarily tie it]

on Shabbat.

But

if a neck opening had not yet been made in the garment,

one may not open

a neck opening in it on Shabbat, because by doing so he completes the garment. He is therefore liable for repairing an implement, which is a derivative of the prohibited labor of “striking with a hammer.”

And one may not place the fibers, neither into a cushion nor into a mattress on a Festival. And there is no need

to say

that one may not place them

on Shabbat.

For Shabbat is more stringent than a Festival, since its violation is punishable by stoning.

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

And we answer:

There is no difficulty. This

statement that teaches, “One may not place [the fibers],” is referring

to

new cushions and mattresses,

which

have never before contained fibers. Only now is he making them into cushions and mattresses.

And

this

case in which Rav Hisda permitted returning them refers

to

cushions

that had already been used.

These fibers had already been inside the cushion but had fallen out. The cushion had already had the status of an implement before he returned the fibers to it, so he is not now making it into an implement.

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

into a cushion nor into a mattress on a Festival, and there is no need to say [that one may not do so] on Shabbat.

But if they

fell out—

one may return them on Shabbat. And there is no need to say

that it is permitted to return them

on a Festival.

For its prohibition is less severe 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 before been made ,

on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering.

For this is the completion of the shirt’s manufacture, and he thereby makes it into an implement. This is a derivative of the prohibited labor of “striking with a hammer.”