(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Shabbos 125



(a) The reeds that come apart from an old reed-mat are not Muktzah - because just as the mat was used to cover excrement - or to prevent the dust from rising, so too, are the reeds fit to cover a mess, and are therefore not Muktzah. (This appears to go like Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah - see Tosfos DH 'Mechtzeles')

(b) Torn pieces of cloth of less than three Etzba'os by three Etzba'os are Muktzah, since they are no longer fit to be used as articles of clothing, even by poor people.

(c) If the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah (regarding 'Shivrei Tanur Yashan') is the same as that in our Mishnah (whether the broken pieces need to retain their original use or not) - then why do they argue specifically over broken pieces of *oven*? Why not over broken pieces of any vessel?

(a) The Gemara attempts to establish the Machlokes by an oven which they fitted into the mouth of a pit (or on top of an enclosure), and, in order to wedge it there, they squeezed a thin stone between the wall of the pit and the wall of the oven. (It is important to note that their ovens had no floors - the ground usually served as the floor of the oven; in this case, it is the floor of the pit.) If the oven is sufficiently close to the floor of the pit that its inside becomes heated from the fire in the pit, then it is considered joined to the ground, and is subject to Tum'ah (since "Tanur ve'Kirayim *Yutatz*" [Shemini] applies to it - since the term 'Yutatz' is confined to something which is Karka or joined to the ground; by Metaltelin, the appropriate term would be a derivative of Shevirah). But if not, then it is not considered joined to the ground, in which case it is not included in the term "Yutatz" and remains Tahor.

(b) The Rabbanan learn from "Temei'im Hem, u'Temei'im Yihyu Lachem" - that even an oven that is not properly attached to the ground, and does not heat up from the floor of the oven, is nevertheless subject to Tum'ah.

(c) The Rabbanan learn from ("Tanur ve'Kirayim) Yutatz" - that in spite of the fact that something that is joined to the ground is normally Tahor, an oven *is*.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Temei'im Hem, u'Temei'im Yihyu Lachem" - that if the oven was already heated when it was attached to the ground, and, after having been detached, is being heated for the second time, it is nevertheless subject to Tum'ah. In other words, the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan is by the *first* heating, but by the *second* heating, even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that the oven remains subject to Tum'ah.

(a) According to the Rabbanan, even an oven which was placed, not on top of a pit, but on to the back of a camel - is nevertheless subject to Tum'ah after the first heating, which renders it a K'li. The Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan is whether the first heating in the above circumstances, renders the oven a K'li or not.

(b) Rav Ashi re-establishes the Machlokes as we explained initially - in 1c. (by the broken pieces of a regular oven); only not when the broken pieces of oven are totally unfit for their initial usage, but when they are fit to be used in a manner similar to the one for which they were initially used - i.e. one can still roast on them directly, like one would roast on a tile, but not with liquids or even with oil, since they have no cavity to contain liquids. Rebbi Meir is now saying to the Rabbanan: according to me, even if they were only fit to be used in a manner that is totally different from the original one, I would hold that the broken pieces are considered Kelim. But at least agree with me that the broken pieces of oven, which do have a similar use to their original one, are Kelim, and as such, are subject to Tum'ah.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah refutes Rebbi Meir's argument - firstly because an unbroken oven is used on the *inside*, the broken pieces on the *outside*; and secondly, whereas the oven is used vertically, the broken pieces are used horizontally.

4) Rebbi Yossi quoting Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov comes to teach us - that the lids of vessels do not require handles to be considered Kelim.


(a) Even she'be'Kiruyah - is a stone in a pumpkin, placed there to give the pumpkin weight.

(b) One is permitted to draw water with the pumpkin, provided the stone is tied to it (in which case, it becomes Batel to the pumpkin); otherwise, the pumpkin merely becomes a Basis to the stone.

(c) Similarly, one is permitted to draw water with a jar on the end of a vine-branch - provided the branch is tied to the jar.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer permits placing a window-stopper into a window on Shabbos - provided it is both tied there and hanging on the back of the door - but not if it is dragging on the floor.




(a) The difference between the two cases ('Even she'Al Pi Chavis, Mateh al Tzidah ve'Hi Nofeles' when he placed it there deliberately, and a pumpkin with a fixed stone inside), is the fact that the stone is fixed inside the pumpkin. By fixing the stone there, he rendered it part of the pumpkin, which is not the case by the stone on the mouth of the barrel.

(b) According to Rav Yosef, the Mishnah which forbids picking up the barrel, speaks when he forgot the stone there, but when he placed it there deliberately, he is even permitted to pick up the barrel, because, since he designated the stone to cover the barrel, it becomes part of the barrel.

(c) A stone on the mouth of the barrel makes a fine cover, so there is no reason why it should be Muktzah; whereas placing a stone inside a pumpkin without tying it, is useless. Consequently, as long as the stone is not fixed, it cannot be considered as being part of the pumpkin.

(a) Rabah (in the previous Machlokes) holds that designating something that is not a K'li for a use which makes it a K'li or part of a K'li, is effective only if one performs a positive act on the object, but not designation alone; whereas according to Rav Yosef, designation alone will suffice.

(b) Rebbi once traveled to a certain place, where he found a row of bricks from a building. He told them to go out on Erev Shabbos and have specifically in mind to use them on the following day to sit on.

(c) Rebbi Ami quoted Rebbi as saying 'Tze'u ve'Lamdum!' - because in his opinion, the stones would not become permitted through a minor act, only through a real change in their formation. Consequently, on the Shabbos, they would not be able to move them, nor would cleaning them from the mud (also considered no more than a minor act) suffice. So Rebbi Yochanan instructed his disciples to arrange them on Friday, so that they would not need to be moved on Shabbos. Rebbi Asi on the other hand, holds that even a minor act will suffice to permit the stones. Which is why Rebbi Yochanan instructed them to clean the stones - and this would enable them to be moved on the following day (Shabbos).

(d) Some opinion maintain that ship's poles remain Muktzah, because people are particular about using them for other purposes, in case they become warped and unfit to be used for their original purpose. Consequently, they are 'Muktzah Machmas Chesaron Kis'.

(a) The reason that even Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (who permits palm-branches without an act) may well agree with the Tana of our Mishnah, who requires the vine-Branch to be tied to the jar - is because our Mishnah speaks when the branch is still attached to the vine - and to consider something which is attached to be detached, requires an act.

(b) There is no problem with using something that is attached - because we are speaking here about using it below three Tefachim, where this is permitted.

(c) According to Rav Ashi, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel will agree with the Tana of our Mishnah who requires an act, even if he speaks about a vine-branch that is *detached*. Why? Because he may find the branch too long, in which case he will cut it to size, and be Chayav because of Tikun Manah. Fixing the branch through an act on Erev Shabbos will eliminate that fear. But in the case of the palm-branches, this fear is not a practical one. Consequently, he does not require an act.

(a) No! One is not permitted to make a temporary Ohel on Shabbos, or even on Yom-Tov.

(b) Making a horizontal Ohel is forbidden, whereas a vertical one is permitted (if it is made for Tzeni'us reasons, and not for a Halachic requirement).

(c) However, that is only if the vertical Ohel is not attached to an existing wall. If it is, like in the case in our Mishnah, then even a vertical Ohel is prohibited, since it resembles adding to the building.

(d) Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah forbids even adding on to a temporary Ohel on Shabbos and even on Yom-Tov - the Rabbanan permit it.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,