Shabbat 48b — the Talmud in English

What is the difference between

opening a collar

and

breaking the

seal

(stopper) of a

barrel,

as we learned in the Mishna: “A person may bring a barrel on Shabbat, break its top with a sword, and place it before the guests”?! Why, there, is this not considered making a utensil fit for use, since he makes an opening in the barrel?

Rava said

to Rav Kahana:

This

collar

is attached

to the body of the garment before it is torn, since it is woven together with the garment in a single weaving. Therefore, when he opens it, he is making a repair in the body of the garment. But

this

seal of a barrel

is not attached

to the barrel as one unit, since the seal is not part of the barrel itself. Although it is stuck to the barrel, it is not considered one body with it, because it is meant to be removed from it. Consequently, by breaking the seal away from the barrel, he is not acting upon the body of the barrel. Therefore, this does not constitute making a utensil fit for use.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised the following difficulty to Rabbi Zeira:

On the one hand,

we learned:

The launderers customarily tie many garments together—small garments with large ones—so that they will not be lost. This collection of garments is called “a launderer’s bundle.”

A launderer’s bundle, a chain of keys, and a garment sewn with a mixture of wool and linen

[a wool garment made of two pieces sewn together with a linen thread, which will certainly eventually be removed because of the prohibition against such a mixture; the two pieces are destined to be separated]—all of these are

considered attached with regard to ritual impurity.

If impurity touches one of the garments in the launderer’s bundle, one of the keys in the chain, or one piece of the garment containing the mixture, all the garments, all the keys, and all the woolen pieces become impure, because they are all considered one body.

And they are considered attached with regard to ritual impurity

until he begins to untie

them from one another. But once he begins separating them, they are no longer considered attached with regard to ritual impurity. Although he has not yet finished separating them and they are still connected, the act of separation annuls the status created by their previous connection. Once he begins separating them, his action demonstrates that they are not one body.

A launderer’s bundle need be tied only while the garments are being laundered. Nevertheless, all the garments in it are considered one attachment even after the laundering is finished.

Apparently,

even

not while the work is being performed,

that is, even when there is no need for them to be connected,

also

is considered

an attachment.

Rabbi Yirmeya concluded his difficulty:

But they raise an objection from a source:

And we learned: A

stick that he made

a

handle for an axe

but did not permanently fix it inside the axe is

considered attached

as one unit

with regard to ritual impurity

with the axe,

while the work is being performed.

If the axe becomes impure, the stick also becomes impure with it. Although a stick is ordinarily a simple wooden object that is not susceptible to impurity, here it serves as a handle, and handles were included in all the laws governing utensils.

Apparently,

while the work is being performed, it is not

only then is it considered attached, because at that time the connection is needed. But

not while the work is being performed, it is not

considered attached. Thus, the two Mishnayot contradict one another.

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira:

There,

in the case of the axe’s stick,

a person is likely to throw

the stick

among the pieces of wood,

and he puts away only the axe itself. Therefore, it is no longer considered attached.

But

here,

in the case of the launderer’s bundle, even

not while the work is being performed,

after the laundering is completed,

he is also pleased

that the garments should remain tied together, because

if

they become dirty

again, he will wash them again

[launder]

them!

In Sura they taught this statement

of the discussion before us

in the name of Rav Hisda.

But

in Pumbedita they taught

it

in the name of Rav Kahana. And

others

stated it

in the name of

Rava.

This is the statement:

Which tanna

is the source for

this matter that the Sages stated: “Whatever is attached to it is

considered like it”?!

For example, the “launderer’s bundle” mentioned above: all the garments in it are considered attached to one another, and if one of them becomes impure, they all become impure with it.

If they were not considered attached, the impure garment would not render the other garments impure merely through contact with impurity. A utensil becomes impure through contact only with a primary source of impurity. The garment that was touched by the impurity is merely a first-degree source of impurity and cannot render utensils impure.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said:

This Mishna is the opinion of

Rabbi Meir.

As we learned:

A portable earthenware stove, with small earthenware vessels attached to it, such as

the compartment for a flask, the spice compartment, and the lamp compartment,

those earthenware vessels

that are in the stove

are considered attached to the stove

and become impure

with it

through contact.

If impurity falls inside them and touches their bottoms, the stove also becomes impure with them.

Likewise, conversely, if impurity touches the inner bottom of the stove, the attached vessels also become impure with it.

But

they do not

become

impure

with it

through its airspace.

If impurity does not touch the bottom of the stove or the bottom of the small earthenware vessels, but is suspended in their airspace, only that vessel becomes impure—according to the law of an earthenware vessel, which becomes impure through its airspace even without contact with the impurity—but not the vessels attached to it. They are considered attached only with regard to contact.

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And Rabbi Shimon declares them pure,

because he maintains that even if impurity touches the stove, the other vessels do not become impure.

Accordingly, the statement we cited, “Whatever is attached to it is considered like it,” follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

The Gemara asks:

Granted, according to Rabbi Shimon,

who declares them pure both with regard to impurity through contact and with regard to impurity through airspace, this is understandable, because

he holds that

the vessels attached to the stove

are not like the stove

and are not considered attached to it.

But according to Rabbi Meir,

there is a difficulty either way:

If

the vessels attached to the stove

are like the stove, even through

impurity through

the airspace

of the stove,

they should also become impure

with it.

And if they are not like the stove, even through

impurity through

contact

with the stove,

they should also not become impure!

For they are not considered attached to it.

The Gemara answers:

Actually,

by Torah law they

are not like the stove. But the Sages decreed concerning them

that these earthenware vessels should be considered attached to the stove with regard to impurity through contact.

The Gemara asks again:

If the Sages decreed concerning them

that they be considered attached,

even through

impurity through

the airspace

of the stove,

the vessels should also become impure

through it.

The Gemara answers: Since the stove renders the attached vessels impure only by rabbinic law,

the Sages made a distinction concerning them,

so that they would not become impure through the airspace. This makes it clear that their impurity is not by Torah law like that of the stove itself,

so that people will not come

to

burn teruma and consecrated offerings because of it.

Teruma is not burned because of impurity that is only rabbinic, apart from the six doubtful cases listed above, on 15b.

The Sages taught: Folding scissors

[scissors whose two parts can be separated from one another],

and a craftsman’s chisel

[a chisel used to smooth shutters, placed inside a wooden mold; it is not permanently fixed in the wood, but is removed from it after the work]—they are

considered attached with regard to ritual impurity.

If one part of the scissors becomes impure, the other also becomes impure with it. Likewise, if the chisel becomes impure, the wood becomes impure with it.

But

they are not

considered

attached with regard to the sprinkling.

If they became impure through corpse impurity and therefore require the sprinkling of the water containing the ashes of the red heifer, one must sprinkle each part separately; one part is not purified through the sprinkling performed on the other.

The Gemara asks:

What is the alternative? If they are attached,

and considered one body,

they should also be considered attached with regard to the sprinkling.

And

if they are not attached, they should not be considered attached even with regard to impurity

and one should not become impure through the impurity of the other.

Rava said:

The matter is not difficult.

By Torah law, while the scissors and the chisel are being used,

they are

attached both with regard to impurity and with regard to the sprinkling,

because their connection is needed while the work is being performed. They are considered one body.

But when the work is not being performed,

when there is no need for their connection,

they are attached neither with regard to impurity nor with regard to the sprinkling.