Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 124a

his hand upon his fellow's shoulder, and his fellow's hand [rested] upon his shoulder, and so [the animal] was suspended and skinned.¹  'A fastening', as we learnt: If a door-bolt has on its top a fastening contrivance,²  R. Joshua said: One may shift it from one door and hang it on another on the Sabbath;³  R. Tarfon said: It is like all utensils, and may be moved about in a courtyard. 'A mortar': that which we have stated.⁴  Said Rabbah, Whence [does that follow]: perhaps in truth I may argue that they were learnt after the permission re utensils. [Thus:] what was the reason of [placing] canes? On account of mouldiness; but in that short while⁵  they would not become mouldy. As for the staves, it was possible [to act] as R. Eleazar [stated]. The fastening may be as R. Jannai, who said: We treat here of a courtyard not provided with an 'erub:⁶  [now,] R. Joshua holds, The inside of the door⁷  is as within, so one carries a utensil of the house through the courtyard;⁸  whereas R. Tarfon holds that the inside of the door is as without, so one carries a utensil of the courtyard in the courtyard. As for a mortar, that agrees with R. Nehemiah.⁹

MISHNAH. ALL UTENSILS MAY BE HANDLED WHETHER REQUIRED OR NOT REQUIRED. R. NEHEMIAH SAID: THEY MAY BE HANDLED ONLY WHEN REQUIRED.

GEMARA. What does REQUIRED AND NOT REQUIRED mean? — Rabbah¹⁰  said: REQUIRED: an article whose function is for a permitted purpose [may be moved] when required itself; NOT REQUIRED: an article whose function is for a permitted purpose [may be moved] when its place is required;¹¹  but an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose may [be handled] only when required itself,¹²  but not when its place is required. Whereupon R. Nehemiah comes to say that even an article whose function is for a permitted purpose [may be handled] only when required itself, but not when its place [alone] is required. Said Raba to him: If its place is required — do you call it: NOT REQUIRED! Rather said Raba: REQUIRED: an article whose function is for a permitted purpose [may be handled] whether required itself or its place is required: NOT REQUIRED [means] even from the sun to the shade; whilst an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose [may be moved] only when required itself or its place is required but not from the sun to the shade. Whereupon R. Nehemiah comes to say that even an article whose function is for a permitted purpose [may be moved] only when required itself or its place is required — but not from the sun to the shade.

Now, R. Safra, R. Aha b. Huna, and R. Huna b. Hanina sat and reasoned: According to Rabbah on R. Nehemiah's view, how may we move plates?¹³  Said R. Safra to them, By analogy with a pot of excrement.¹⁴  Abaye asked Rabbah: According to you on R. Nehemiah's view, how may we move plates? — R. Safra our colleague has answered it, By analogy with a pot of excrement, he replied.

Abaye objected to Raba: A mortar, if containing garlic, may be handled; if not, it may not be handled? — We treat here of [moving it] from the sun to the shade. He [further] objected to him: And both hold alike that if he had already cut meat upon it, it may not be moved?¹⁵  — Here too it means from the sun to the shade. Now, as to what we learnt: 'One may not support a pot with a leg, and the same applies to a door',¹⁶  — but surely a log on a Festival is an article whose function is for a permitted purpose,¹⁷  which shows that an article whose function is for a permitted purpose 'may not [be handled] whether required itself or its place is needed?¹⁸  — There this is the reason: since on the Sabbath it is an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose, is it preventively forbidden on Festivals on account of the Sabbath.¹⁹  And should you say, Let the Sabbath itself be permitted, since an article whose function is for a forbidden purpose may be [handled] when required itself or its place is required, — that is only where it comes within the category of a utensil, but not where it does not come within the category of a utensil.²⁰

Yet do we enact a preventive measure? Surely we learnt: Produce²¹  may be dropped down through a skylight²²  on Festivals, but not on the Sabbath?²³  — Do we then not preventively prohibit? Surely we learnt: The only difference between Festivals and the Sabbath is in respect of food for consumption?²⁴  — Said R. Joseph, There is no difficulty: the one is [according to] R. Eliezer; the other, R. Joshua. For it was taught: If an animal²⁵  and its young fall into a pit, — R. Eliezer said: One may haul up the first in order to kill it, and for the second provisions are made where it lies that it should not die. R. Joshua said: One hauls up the first in order to kill it, but he does not kill it, then he practises an evasion and hauls up the second, and kills whichever he desires.²⁶  How so? Perhaps R. Eliezer rules [thus] only there, because provisions can be made, but not where provisions can not be made. Or perhaps R. Joshua rules thus only there, since an evasion is possible; but not where an evasion is impossible? Rather said R. Papa: There is no difficulty: one is [according to] Beth Shammai; the other, Beth Hillel. For we learnt, Beth Shammai say:

1. But the staves might not be used then.
2. This had a thick head and could be used as a pestle.
3. Shometah implies that it may be pushed from one to the other, but not picked up in the usual way.
4. Supra 123b. Now R. Eleazar maintains that all these prohibitions held good only before the extended permission in respect to utensils, by which they were abolished.
5. V. p. 612, n. 7.
6. Many houses open into the courtyard. Utensils may not be carried from the houses into the yard, but those already in the yard from before the Sabbath may be moved about therein.
7. Where the fastening contrivance is to be found.
8. Which if done in the normal way is forbidden; therefore it may only be shifted' (v. n. 4).
9. Who maintains that no utensil may be moved for any but its normal use. Hence all four may have been taught after the extended permission was given: the first two remain forbidden because there was no need for handling them at all, the third is connected with the interdict of carrying from one domain to another, whilst the fourth represents an individual view.
10. Alfasi and Asheri read: Abaye.
11. Though the article itself is not.
12. For a permitted labour.
13. After eating the last Sabbath meal, seeing that they are not required for further use on the Sabbath.
14. Which may be removed because it is repulsive, and the same applies to dirty plates.
15. V. supra 123a notes.
16. On Festivals. V. Bez. 32b
17. Sc. it is used for fuel.
18. For even the first is forbidden here, and the second all the more so.
19. If the former is permitted, it may be thought that the latter too is permitted.
20. A log does not rank as a utensil.
21. Spread out on the roof to dry.
22. When it is about to rain.
23. v. Bez. 35b. Thus we do not argue as in n. 5.
24. Which may be prepared on Festivals, e.g., by baking, cooking, etc., but not on the Sabbaths. Thus on all matters they are alike.
25. Lit., 'it'.
26. V. supra 117b for notes. Just as R. Joshua permits both animals to be brought up so he permits one to lower the produce on a Festival to avoid financial loss.

One may not carry out an infant, a lulab,¹  or a Scroll of the Law into the street;²  but Beth Hillel permit it.³  But perhaps you know⁴  Beth Shammai [to rule thus only in respect of] carrying out; do you know them [to rule likewise in respect of] handling? — Is then handling itself not [forbidden on account of] carrying out?⁵

Now, Rab too holds this [view] of Raba. For Rab said: [Moving] a hoe lest it be stolen is unnecessary handling, and is forbidden.⁶  Thus only when it is in order that it should not be stolen, but if it is required for itself or its place is required, it is permitted. But that is not so? For R. Kahana visited Rab's house, whereupon he ordered, Bring a log of wood⁷  for Kahana to sit. [Now] surely that was to imply that a thing whose function is for a forbidden purpose⁸  [may be handled] only when required itself,⁹  but not [merely] when its place is required? — This is what he said to them: Remove the log from Kahana's presence.¹⁰  Alternatively, there it was [moved] from the sun to the shade.¹¹

R. Mari b. Rachel¹²  had some pillows¹³  lying in the sun. He went to Raba and asked him, May these be moved? — It is permitted replied he.¹⁴  [But] I have others?¹⁵  — They are of use for guests. I have [some] for guests too? — You have revealed your opinion that you agree with Rabbah,¹⁶  observed he: to all others it is permitted, but to you it is forbidden.

R. Abba said in the name of R. Hiyya b. Ashi in Rab's name: Table brushes¹⁷  [made] of cloth may be handled on the Sabbath, but not [those made] of palm[-twigs];¹⁸  R. Eleazar maintained: Even [those made] of palm[-twigs]. What are we discussing: Shall we say [where they are handled] when required in themselves or their place is required, shall Rab rule here 'but not [those made] of palm[-twigs]'? Surely Rab agrees with Raba?¹⁹  Again, if it means from the sun to the shade, shall R. Eleazar rule here 'even [those made] of palms'?²⁰  — In truth [it means] from the sun to the shade: say, And thus did R. Eleazar rule.²¹

MISHNAH. ALL UTENSILS WHICH MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH, THEIR FRAGMENTS MAY BE HANDLED TOO,²²  PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THEY CAN PERFORM SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF WORK. [THUS]: THE FRAGMENTS OF A KNEADING TROUGH [THAT CAN BE USED] TO COVER THE MOUTH OF A BARREL THEREWITH, [AND] THE FRAGMENTS OF A GLASS, TO COVER THEREWITH THE MOUTH OF A CRUSE. R. JUDAH MAINTAINED: PROVIDED THAT THEY CAN PERFORM SOMETHING IN THE NATURE OF THEIR OWN [FORMER] WORK;²³  [THUS:] THE FRAGMENTS OF A KNEADING TROUGH, TO POUR A THICK MASS THEREIN;²⁴  OR OF A GLASS, TO POUR OIL THEREIN.

GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The controversy is only if they were broken from the eve of the Sabbath, one Master holding: Only [provided they are fit for] something in the nature of their own [former] work, but not for something in the nature of a different work; whereas the other Master holds: Even [if fit] for something in the nature of a different work. But if they are broken on the Sabbath, all agree that they are permitted,²⁵  since they are mukan²⁶  in virtue of their origin.²⁷

R. Zutra objected: 'We may heat [an oven] with utensils, but not with fragments of utensils'²⁸  Now when were these broken? Shall we say that they were broken from the eve of the Festival, then they are simply pieces of wood.²⁹  Hence it must surely be on the Festival, yet he teaches, 'We may heat with utensils, but not with fragments of utensils'?³⁰  — Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The controversy is only if they are broken on the Sabbath, one Master holding that they are mukan, whilst the other Master holds that they are nolad.³¹  But [if broken] on Sabbath eve, all hold that they are permitted, since they were mukan for work from the day time.³²

One [Baraitha] taught: We may heat with utensils, but not with fragments of utensils; another was taught: Just as we may heat with utensils, so may we heat with fragments of utensils: whilst a third taught: We may heat neither with utensils nor with fragments of utensils. One agrees with R. Judah, one with R. Simeon, and the last with R. Nehemiah.³³

R. Nahman said: The bricks that are left over from a building may be handled, since they are fit to sit on.³⁴  [But] if he places them in rows, then he has certainly set them apart.³⁵

R. Nahman said in Samuel's name: A small shard may be moved about in a courtyard, but not in a karmelith.³⁶  But R. Nahman [giving] his own [view] maintained: Even In a karmelith,³⁷  but not in the street; whereas Raba said: Even in the street.³⁸  Now, Raba is consistent with his view. For Raba was walking in the manor of Mahoza,³⁹  when his shoes become soiled with clay; [so] his attendant came, took a shard, and wiped it off. The Rabbis (his disciples] rebuked him.⁴⁰  Said he, It is not enough that they have not learnt — they would even teach! If it were in a courtyard, would it not be fit for covering a utensil? Here too I have a use for it.

Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The bung of a barrel which is broken in pieces may be handled on the Sabbath. It was taught likewise: If a bung is broken in pieces [both] it and the fragments thereof may be handled on the Sabbath. But one must not trim a fragment thereof to cover a vessel or support the legs of a bed⁴¹  therewith; but if one throws it away on the dung heap, it is forbidden.⁴²  R. Papa demurred: If so, if one throws away his robe, is that too prohibited?⁴³  Rather said R. Papa:

1. The palm branch; v. Lev. XXIII, 40.
2. On Festivals, for only the preparation of food is permitted. Hence the Mishnah stating that this is the only difference, etc., agrees with Beth Shammai.
3. Therefore the law that produce may be dropped, etc., agrees with Beth Hillel.
4. Lit., 'hear'.
5. Carrying out naturally involves handling, and the latter was forbidden on account of the former. — So Rashi in Bez. 37a. which seems the correct interpretation on the present reading. But the reading there, as well as a variant here, is: 'is not handling a (pre)requisite of carrying out'? (v. Rashi and Marginal Gloss.). Hence handling is forbidden because it partakes of the nature of carrying out. Thus when Beth Shammai prohibit carrying out they also prohibit handling.
6. Just as moving it from the sun to the shade.
7. BaH. Rashi and Jast. translate: a trap.
8. A log is used as fuel, which, of course, is forbidden on the Sabbath. Trapping too (according to Rashi's translation) is forbidden.
9. And therefore he emphasized that it was wanted for a seat.
10. That he may sit in its place.
11. Therefore he emphasized the true purpose, so that they might not think that it was moved for that reason alone.
12. His father at the time of his conception was not a Jew; hence he is called by his mother's name.
13. Or, bolsters.
14. In accordance with his view supra a, q.v.
15. So I do not need these for themselves.
16. Or, Abaye, supra a.
17. For clearing the crumbs off the table, which is permitted.
18. I.e., brooms used for sweeping the floor, which is forbidden.
19. Permitting this.
20. None permit this.
21. Like Rab, the former version of R. Eleazar's view being incorrect.
22. Lit., 'with them'. (The words are, however, rightly omitted in MS.M.]
23. I.e., similar to that performed by the whole utensil.
24. Like the dough kneaded in the trough.
25. Whatever their present use.
26. V. Glos.
27. v. p. 214, n. 5.
28. On Festivals.
29. Which may certainly be used.
30. Which refutes Samuel's view reported by Rab Judah.
31. Newly created (v. Glos.). As a fragment it has only just come into existence, and therefore must not be used on the Sabbath.
32. I.e., from before the commencement of the Sabbath they stood to be used as fuel, and so they are regarded as ready for their new function.
33. (i) R. Judah: both mukzeh and nolad are forbidden, hence the prohibition of fragments. (ii) R. Simeon: mukzeh and nolad are permitted, hence both fragments and vessel are permissible; (iii) R. Nehemiah: a utensil may be handled on the Sabbath or Festival only for its normal function, hence the prohibition of both.
34. And the last few may possibly be kept for that purpose.
35. For another building; hence they are mukzeh and must not be handled.
36. In the former vessels may generally be found for which the shard can be used as a cover, but not in the latter.
37. Where people sometimes sit down; one can cover saliva with this.
38. Since it is a utensil in a courtyard, it remains so elsewhere.
39. V. p. 277, n. 8. and B. B., Sonc. ed., p. 60, n. 4.
40. Lit., 'lifted their voice against him'.
41. V. p. 199, n. 2. Here, however, it is probably meant literally.
42. Because the owner has shown that it has ceased to be a utensil in his eyes.
43. Surely not!