## Shabbat Daf 29a

###### Shabbat 29a:1
[Shabbat 29a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/29a:1)

גּוֹי שֶׁחָקַק קַב בִּבְקַעַת — יִשְׂרָאֵל מַסִּיקָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְאַמַּאי? נוֹלָד הוּא! לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When a gentile carved out a** vessel the size of a ***kav*** from a **piece of wood** on a Festival and thereby rendered it a new vessel, **a Jew may burn** the vessel **on a Festival** *ab initio*. **And why** may he do so? This new vessel that was made from the wood **is** an object that **came into being [*nolad*]** on a Festival, and is set-aside [*muktze*]. Since Rav Adda bar Ahava permitted doing so, apparently he holds that the laws of set-aside do not apply on a Festival, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers: Rav Adda bar Ahava **said this** statement **in** explanation of **the statements** of **Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva** in the mishna; **however, he** himself **does not hold that way.** Although he explained the opinions in the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he himself does not hold that that is the *halakha*.


###### Shabbat 29a:2
[Shabbat 29a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/29a:2)

רָבָא אָמַר, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַדְלִיקִין בִּפְתִילָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְחוֹרֶכֶת וְלֹא בִּסְמַרְטוּטִין שֶׁאֵינָן מְחוֹרָכִין. אֶלָּא הָא דְּתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף ״שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ מְצוּמְצָמוֹת״ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה. דִּתְנַן: שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁאָמְרוּ — חוּץ מִן הַמְּלָל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ מְכֻוּוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said, this is the reasoning** behind **Rabbi Eliezer’s** opinion with regard to lighting the wick: **Because** he holds **that one may neither light** on Shabbat **using a wick that is not** slightly **singed** and prepared for lighting **nor light with rags that were not singed** before Shabbat. If a person singes the wick slightly before lighting it, it will burn well. A wick that has not been singed does not burn well and will not show the appropriate deference to Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, **that which Rav Yosef taught: Three by three exactly, to what *halakha*** is it relevant? According to Rava’s explanation, the precise size of the garment used in making the wick is irrelevant. The Gemara responds: Rav Yosef’s statement was **with regard to** another **matter,** the *halakhot* of **ritual impurity. As we learned** in a mishna in tractate *Kelim*: **Three by three** fingerbreadths **that they stated** as the smallest sized garment that can become ritually impure, **excludes the** portion used for the **hem,** i.e., those threads that emerge at the edge of the garment and are sewn into a hem; this is **the statement of Rabbi Shimon. And the Rabbis say: Three by three exactly,** even including the hem. That is the context of Rav Yosef’s statement: Three by three exactly.


###### Shabbat 29a:3
[Shabbat 29a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/29a:3)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַסִּיקִין בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין מַסִּיקִין בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. מַסִּיקִין בִּתְמָרִין, אֲכָלָן אֵין מַסִּיקִין בְּגַרְעִינֵיהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר. מַסִּיקִין בֶּאֱגוֹזִים, אֲכָלָן אֵין מַסִּיקִין בִּקְלִיפּוֹתֵיהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the statement cited above, **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said** that there is a dispute between the *tanna*’*im* on this issue: **One may** only **kindle** a fire **with** whole **vessels and one may not kindle** a fire **with broken vessels;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits** kindling a fire even with broken vessels. An additional *halakha*: **One may kindle** a fire **with** whole **dates** on a Festival, and if **he ate them, he may not kindle** a fire **with their pits** as they are set-aside; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits** kindling a fire with the pits. Furthermore, **one may kindle** a fire **with** whole **nuts** on a Festival, and if **he ate them, he may not kindle** a fire **with their shells;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Shimon permits** doing so.


###### Shabbat 29a:4
[Shabbat 29a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/29a:4)

וּצְרִיכָא. דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא, בְּהַהִיא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא כְּלִי וְהַשְׁתָּא שֶׁבֶר כְּלִי, וְהָוֵה לֵיהּ נוֹלַד, וְאָסוּר. אֲבָל תְּמָרִים, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא גַּרְעִינִין וְהַשְׁתָּא גַּרְעִינִין — אֵימָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּרְעִינִין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא מִכַּסְּיָין וְהַשְׁתָּא מִיגַּלְּיָין. אֲבָל קְלִיפֵּי אֱגוֹזִין, דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא מִיגַּלּוּ וְהַשְׁתָּא מִיגַּלּוּ — אֵימָא שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And it was necessary** to cite all three of these cases because each teaches a novel idea. **As, had** Rav **taught us** only **the first** *halakha*, we would have thought that it is specifically **in that** case, with regard to burning broken vessels, that **Rabbi Yehuda said** that it is prohibited, **as initially** it was **a vessel and now** it is a **broken vessel, and therefore it is** considered an object that **came into being [*nolad*] and prohibited; however, dates, initially** there were **pits** in the dates **and now** they remain **pits, say** that one may **well** do so. **And had** Rav **taught us** only with regard to date **pits I would have said** that they are prohibited because **initially** they were **concealed** within the fruit **and now** they are **exposed,** it is a case of an object that came into being and prohibited. **However, nutshells, which initially** were **exposed and now** are **exposed,** as they were before, **say** that one may **well** do so. Therefore, it was necessary to teach all of these cases.


###### Shabbat 29a:5
[Shabbat 29a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/29a:5)

וְהָא דְּרַב לָאו בְּפֵירוּשׁ אִיתְּמַר, אֶלָּא מִכְּלָלָא אִיתְּמַר. דְּרַב אֲכַל תַּמְרֵי וּשְׁדָא קַשְׁיָיתָא לְבוּכְיָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא: בַּר פַּחֲתֵי, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אָסוּר. קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ אוֹ לָא קַבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara adds: **This** *halakha* of **Rav was not stated explicitly; rather, it was stated by inference** based on conclusions drawn from Rav’s actions and not from his explicit statements. There was an instance where **Rav ate dates** on a weekday and **threw** the **pits into the oven. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Son of noblemen,** the **corresponding** action, throwing pits into an oven, **is prohibited on a Festival.** The Gemara asks: **Did** Rav **accept** this *halakha* **from him or did he not accept** it **from him?**


###### Shabbat 29a:6
[Shabbat 29a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/29a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב לְבָבֶל, אֲכַל תַּמְרֵי וּשְׁדָא קַשְׁיָיתָא לְחֵיוָתָא. מַאי לָאו בְּפַרְסָיָיאתָא, וְלָא קַבְּלַהּ? — לָא, בַּאֲרַמָּיָאתָא — הוֹאִיל וַחֲזֵי אַגַּב אִימַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear: When Rav came** from Eretz Yisrael **to Babylonia, he ate dates** on a Festival **and threw their pits to the animals** so that they may eat them. **Wasn’t it** a case involving **Persian** dates, which are quality dates whose fruit comes completely off the pits, leaving the pits with no trace of fruit? Ostensibly, they are completely set-aside as they are of no use at all to people. **And** the fact that Rav threw the pits to the animals indicates that **he did not accept** this *halakha* from Rabbi Ḥiyya, and he holds that there is no prohibition in that case. The Gemara replies: **No,** this is a case involving **Aramean** dates whose fruit does not come off completely, and remnants of the date remain attached to the pit. These pits, **since they are** still **fit for use due to their mother,** i.e., the fruit itself, one is permitted to carry them.


###### Shabbat 29a:7
[Shabbat 29a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/29a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר בַּר חָנָה לְרַב יוֹסֵף: לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר מַסִּיקִין בְּכֵלִים וְאֵין מַסִּיקִין בְּשִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים, כֵּיוָן דְּאַדְלֵיק בְּהוּ פּוּרְתָּא הָוֵה לֵיהּ שִׁבְרֵי כֵלִים, וְכִי קָא מְהַפֵּךְ — בְּאִיסּוּרָא קָא מְהַפֵּךְ? — דַּעֲבַד כִּדְרַב מַתְנָה. דְּאָמַר רַב מַתְנָה אָמַר רַב: עֵצִים שֶׁנָּשְׁרוּ מִן הַדֶּקֶל לְתַנּוּר בְּיוֹם טוֹב, מַרְבֶּה עֵצִים מוּכָנִין וּמַסִּיקָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shmuel bar bar Ḥana said to Rav Yosef: According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who **said** that **one may kindle** a fire **with** whole **vessels, and one may not kindle** a fire **with broken vessels,** how it is possible to use whole vessels? **Once they are ignited a bit, they become broken vessels, and when one turns** the wood **over** to accelerate their ignition, **he turns** them **over in a prohibited** manner, as it is prohibited to light with broken vessels. The Gemara answers: This is a case **where he acted in accordance with** the statement of **Rav Mattana.** As **Rav Mattana said** that **Rav said: Branches that fell from a palm tree into an oven on a Festival,** since these branches were attached to the tree at the onset of the Festival, they are set-aside and it is prohibited to move them. Nevertheless, he can remedy the situation if he **adds wood** that was **prepared** for burning prior to the Festival, until the majority of the wood in the oven is not set-aside, **and then kindles them.** Since the majority of the wood is permitted, he need not concern himself with the minority. One may do the same when burning vessels by adding wood that is not set-aside.


###### Shabbat 29a:8
[Shabbat 29a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/29a:8)

רַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה עָסְקִינַן, מִקּוּלֵּי מַטְלָנִיּוֹת שָׁנוּ כָּאן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Hamnuna said** a different explanation of the dispute in the mishna. In his opinion, **here we are dealing with** a garment that is **smaller than three by three** handbreadths, **and they taught here** *halakhot* established by the Sages **with regard to insignificant small cloths.**


###### Shabbat 29a:9
[Shabbat 29a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/29a:9)

וְאָזְדָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְטַעְמֵיהּ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ. דִּתְנַן: פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהִתְקִינוֹ לִפְקֹק בּוֹ אֶת הַמֶּרְחָץ וּלְנַעֵר בּוֹ אֶת הַקְּדֵירָה וּלְקַנֵּחַ בּוֹ אֶת הָרֵחַיִים — בֵּין מִן הַמּוּכָן וּבֵין שֶׁאֵין מִן הַמּוּכָן — טָמֵא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: בֵּין מִן הַמּוּכָן וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּכָן — טָהוֹר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִן הַמּוּכָן — טָמֵא, וְשֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּכָן — טָהוֹר. וְאָמַר עוּלָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים זְרָקוֹ בָּאַשְׁפָּה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל טָהוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Eliezer followed his** line of **reasoning** expressed elsewhere, **and Rabbi Akiva** followed **his** line of **reasoning** expressed elsewhere. **As we learned** in a mishna in tractate *Kelim*: A cloth **smaller than three by three** handbreadths **that was utilized to plug the bath, and to pour** from a boiling **pot, and to wipe the millstone, whether** this cloth was expressly **prepared** for that purpose or **whether** it **was not prepared,** it can become **ritually impure;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Whether** it was **prepared or whether** it was **not prepared,** it is **ritually pure,** i.e., it cannot become ritually impure. **Rabbi Akiva** distinguishes between the cases and **says:** If it was **prepared** it is **ritually impure, and** if it was **not prepared** it is **ritually pure. And Ulla said, and some say** that **Rabba bar bar Ḥana said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone agrees** that a cloth this size, if **one threw it into the garbage** dump, **it is ritually pure.** His discarding of the cloth indicates that he no longer considers this cloth a garment and no longer considers it significant.