Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 2, scan section 33

tables, but the brooms made of date-palms (which are only intended for floor-sweeping) must not be used for sweeping the tables. This was also stated by R. Elazar. MISHNA: Of all utensils which may be handled on the Sabbath, fragments may also be handled, but it must be with a purpose, viz. : the pieces of a kneading-trough to cover the bunghole of a cask, the pieces of a glass to cover the mouth of a pitcher. R. Jehudah says: " They must be fit for the same use (as the whole utensil), viz. : the parts of a kneading-trough to hold a brew, and the pieces of a glass to hold oil." GEMARA: Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel: " The first Tana of the Mishna and R. Jehudah differ only as to fragments which were broken off on the Sabbath ; for the former holds that the fragment is part and parcel of the utensil, and fit for the same use, while R. Jehudah holds, that the fragment is a newly created thing; but if the fragments were broken off before the Sabbath set in, all agree that they may be handled ; because they were prepared for use while it was yet (week) day." We have learned, in one Boraitha, that fire may be made with utensils, but not with fragments ; and in another Boraitha we have learned, that as we may make fire with utensils, so we may also use fragments for the same purpose. In a third Boraitha, how- ever, we were taught, that we must not make fire with either utensils or fragments. We must say, then, that the first Bora- itha is in accordance with the opinion of R. Jehudah (who holds to the theory of " Muktza " and Noled (a newly ceated thing), the second Boraitha is in accordance with the opinion of R. Simeon (who holds to neither of the two theories), and the third Boraitha is in accordance with R. Nehemiah (who holds that TRACT SABBATH. 271 every utensil must be used for its particular purpose and not for other purposes). R. Na'hman said: " Bricks left over from a building may be handled, because they can be used as seats; but if the bricks were piled up one on top of the other, they were evidently des- ignated for building, and must not be handled." R. Na'hman said in the name of Samuel : A fragment of a piece of pottery may be handled in private ground, but not in unclaimed ground (because in private ground other vessels can generally be found and the fragment may be used as a lid or cover, but in unclaimed ground there are no other vessels and the fragment cannot be used in that manner); but R. Na'hman himself declares, that the fragment may be handled in unclaimed ground also (because in unclaimed ground there may also be some things which can be covered), but not in public ground ; and Rabha, however, says, it may be handled even in public ground (because having been once regarded as a utensil in private ground it remains such everywhere). This theory of Rabha's is borne out by his action ; for it happened that he was walking on the street Ritka in the city of Mehuzza on a Sabbath, when his shoe became soiled with dirt. His servant came and cleaned it off with a fragment of a piece of pottery. The rabbis who went behind him scolded his servant for this act, whereupon he (Rabha) remarked : " It is not enough that they have not learned (what is permissible and what is not), but they also want to teach others. If this fragment were in private ground, it would have been a useful article because a vessel could be covered with it, and here in public ground it is useful to me." R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel said: "The bung-head of a broken barrel may be handled on Sabbath." We have also learned this in the following Boraitha: " The bung-head and the pieces of a broken barrel may be handled on Sabbath, but it is not allowed to break off a piece of the fragments and cover a vessel with it or put it under the legs of a bedstead." If the bung-head and pieces, however, were thrown away among the garbage before the Sabbath, they must not be handled at all. R. Hamdura said*in the name of Samuel: " The waste of a mat may be used on the Sabbath." Why so ? For what pur- pose can it be used ? Said Rabha: " Bar Hamdura explained this to me as follows : What is a mat used for ? To prevent the dust from settling upon an object, and the waste can also be used 272 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. for covering up dirt. ' ' R. Zera said in the name of Rabh : ' ' Rem- nants of silken togas must not be handled on the Sabbath." Said Abayi: " This is said of remnants that measure less than three fingers square and are of no value to either rich or poor." The rabbis taught : Fragments of an old oven are equal to any other vessels that may be handled on Sabbath, So said R. Meir; but R. Jehudah said they may not be handled. R. Jose testified in the name of R. Eliezer ben Jacob, that frag- ments of an oven may be handled on the Sabbath and the cov-. ers of an oven may be handled even if their handles are broken off. Said Rabhina: " According to whose opinion do we handle to-day the covers of the ovens used in the city of Mahassia, which have no handles ? It must be according to the opinion of R. Eliezer ben Jacob." MISHNA: One may dip water with a hollow pumpkin to which a stone is fastened, providing the stone will not fall off; otherwise, one must not dip water with it. One may dip water with a jug to which a vine branch is fastened. " For a window-blind," says R. Eliezer, " a thing may only then be put up, if it be fastened and hang down; otherwise, it must not." The sages say it may be put up in any manner. GEMARA: We have learned in another Mishna: "If a stone lie at the opening of a barrel, the barrel may be bent over, so that the stone fall down." Said Rabba in the name of R. Ami, quoting R. Johanan : "The case applies only when the stone lying at the opening of the barrel was left there unin- tentionally; but if placed there on purpose, the barrel becomes a base for a prohibited thing (and must not be moved)," R. Joseph in the name of R. Assi, quoting R. Johanan, said, on the contrary: " If the stone was left there unintentionally the barrel must be bent over, so that the stone fall down ; but if placed there intentionally, it serves as a lid to the barrel, and maybe removed." On what points do R. Ami and R. Assi differ ? One holds, that an act must be accomplished in order to be an act, while the other holds the intention to be equivalent to the deed, and their respective theories are borne out by their opinions which follow: For when R. Dimi, and according to others R. Zera, came from Palestine, he related in the name of R. Hanina : It hap- pened that Rabbi once went to a certain place on a Friday, and finding a pile of stones said to his disciples: " Go and have it in your minds that we intend to sit on these to-morrow." Thus