(34a:1)it is necessary to test them to ensure that they do not burst when heated. If they are heated for the first time on a Festival, he will be thereby testing them, which is a prohibited labor. And some say: Because it is necessary to harden them by overheating them the first time to make them fit for use, which is considered preparing a vessel for use and is prohibited on a Festival.
(34a:2)תנן התם דרסה או שטרפה בכותל או שרצצתה בהמה ומפרכסת ושהתה מעת לעת ושחטה כשרה א"ר אלעזר בר ינאי משום ר' אלעזר בן אנטיגנוס צריכה בדיקה
(34a:2)In relation to the above, the Gemara cites the following teaching: We learned in a mishna there: If one trampled fowl with his foot, or threw it against a wall, or if an animal crushed it, and it is twitching but cannot stand; if the animal waited, i.e., remained alive, from the time of the injury until the same time twenty-four hours later, and he subsequently slaughtered it, it is kosher, provided no other defect is found in it that would have caused it to die within twelve months, which would render it a tereifa. Rabbi Elazar bar Yannai said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Antigonus: It requires examination after slaughtering, to make sure it does not have a defect.
(34a:3)בעא מיניה ר' ירמיה מרבי זירא מהו לשחטה ביום טוב מי מחזקינן רעותא ביום טוב או לא
(34a:3)In relation to the same issue, Rabbi Yirmeya inquired of Rabbi Zeira: What is the halakha with regard to slaughtering it on a Festival? Do we assume on a Festival that it has a flaw or not? In other words, may one rely on the assumption that a typical chicken has no defect? Or perhaps, since there is concern with regard to this particular bird and it requires examination, one should refrain from slaughtering it lest it turn out to be a tereifa. If so, he will have performed labor for no purpose.
(34a:4)אמר ליה תנינא אין מלבנין את הרעפים לצלות בהן והוינן בה מאי קא עביד ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן הכא ברעפים חדשים עסקינן מפני שצריך לבדקן
(34a:4)He said to him in response: We already learned that one may not whiten tiles in order to roast on them. And we discussed it: What does he thereby do? And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Here we are dealing with new tiles, and the Sages prohibited heating them because one first needs to test them, and they might crack when heated. If they were heated for the first time on a Festival and cracked, it would show that they were unfit for use, in which case heating them would have been an unnecessary labor. This indicates that one may not take a chance on a Festival with regard to something that might be flawed, and therefore a possible tereifa should be similarly prohibited.
(34a:5)אמר ליה אנן מפני שצריך לחסמן מתנינן לה:
(34a:5)He said to him: This is no proof; we learned that the reason for that halakha is because it is necessary to harden them in order to make them into proper vessels. Therefore, there is no connection between making a vessel and conducting an examination. Consequently, there is no reason to prohibit the slaughter of such a chicken on a Festival.
(34a:6)תניא אחד מביא את האור ואחד מביא את העצים ואחד שופת את הקדרה ואחד מביא את המים ואחד נותן בתוכו תבלין ואחד מגיס כולן חייבין והתניא אחרון חייב וכולן פטורין לא קשיא הא דאייתי אור מעיקרא הא דאייתי אור לבסוף
(34a:6)It is taught in a baraita: It is possible for several people to perform a single act of cooking on Shabbat, and all will be liable. How so? One brings the fire, and one brings the wood, and one places the pot on the stove, and one brings the water for the pot, and one puts spices into the food, and one stirs the pot; they are all liable for cooking. The Gemara wonders at this: But wasn’t it taught in a different baraita that the last one is liable and all the rest are exempt? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This case, where all are liable, is referring to a situation in which he brought fire at the outset, and therefore each of them performed part of the act of cooking; that case, where only the last one is liable, is referring to a situation in which he brought fire at the end. In that case, none of the earlier people performed any aspect of cooking at all, as the labor of cooking begins only from when fire is brought.
(34a:7)בשלמא כולהו קא עבדי מעשה אלא שופת את הקדרה מאי קא עביד אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש הכא בקדרה חדשה עסקינן ומשום לבון רעפים נגעו בה:
(34a:7)The Gemara asks: Granted, all of them performed an action that constitutes a prohibited labor, and they are therefore partners in a prohibited act and the desecration of Shabbat. But the one who places the pot on the stove, what prohibited labor has he performed? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Here we are dealing with a new pot, and due to whitening tiles they applied the same prohibition to it. This means that one is not liable for cooking the food in the pot but for strengthening the pot itself, as is the case with heating tiles.
(34a:8)ת"ר תנור וכירים חדשים הרי הן ככל הכלים הנטלין בחצר אבל אין סכין אותם שמן ואין טשין אותן במטלית ואין מפיגין אותן בצונן כדי לחסמן ואם בשביל לאפות הרי זה מותר:
(34a:8)§ The Sages taught in the Tosefta: New ovens and stoves are similar to all vessels that may be carried in a courtyard on a Festival, as one can place items on them. However, one may not anoint them with oil, nor rub them with a rag, nor cool them with cold liquids to harden them, as all these actions are considered preparing the vessel for use, which may not be done on a Festival. And if one did so in order to bake in the oven on the Festival itself, this is permitted.
(34a:9)תנו רבנן מולגין את הראש ואת הרגלים ומהבהבין אותן באור אבל אין טופלין אותם בחרסית ולא באדמה ולא בסיד ואין גוזזין אותן במספרים
(34a:9)§ The Sages taught in the Tosefta: During a Festival one may scald the head and the feet of a slaughtered animal with hot water in order to remove the hairs from them, and one may singe them in fire for this purpose, but one may not smear them with clay, nor earth, nor lime in order to remove the hairs because this involves great effort, and it appears as though he is processing the skin. And one may not shear those hairs with scissors, as it appears as though he is performing the labor of shearing in an effort to obtain the hairs themselves.
(34a:10)ואין גוזזין את הירק בתספורת שלו אבל מתקנין את הקונדס ואת העכביות ומסיקין ואופין בפורני ומחמין חמין באנטיכי ואין אופין בפורני חדשה שמא תפחת:
(34a:10)Similarly, one may not trim the top of the leaves connected to the vegetable with its special shears, but one may prepare kundas and akaviyot, bitter vegetables that can be eaten only after extensive cooking, although this involves great effort. And one may kindle fire and bake in a large baker’s oven [purnei], and one may heat water in an antikhi, a kind of large urn, but one may not bake in a new baker’s oven lest it break. If the oven cracks when heated because it was not properly made, one will have performed unnecessary work on a Festival.
(34a:11)ת"ר אין נופחין במפוח אבל נופחין בשפופרת ואין מתקנין את השפוד ואין מחדדין אותו ת"ר אין מפצעין את הקנה לצלות בו מליח אבל מפצעין את האגוז במטלית ואין חוששין שמא תקרע:
(34a:11)§ The Sages taught similarly in the Tosefta: One may not blow a fire with bellows, because this is the manner of a weekday activity, but one may blow a fire with a tube, in an unusual manner. And one may not mend a skewer nor sharpen it. The Sages further taught in the Tosefta: One may not break a reed in order to make a kind of skewer upon which to roast salted fish, but one may crack a nut covered with a rag, and there is no concern lest it tear, for even if this occurs, no prohibited labor has been performed.
(34a:12)מתני׳ ועוד אמר רבי אליעזר עומד אדם על המוקצה
(34a:12)MISHNA: And Rabbi Eliezer further stated the following leniency: A person may stand over objects in storage, such as produce that he has for some reason previously set aside from use,
(34b:1)ערב שבת בשביעית ואומר מכאן אני אוכל למחר וחכמים אומרים עד שירשום ויאמר מכאן ועד כאן:
(34b:1)on Shabbat eve during the Sabbatical Year, during which no tithes are separated, which means one may take fruit on the following day without the need for any corrective measure, and say: From here, from these fruits, I will eat tomorrow. And the Rabbis say: He may not eat unless he marks the pile of fruit the day before and explicitly says: From here to there I will take.
(34b:2)גמ׳ תנן התם תינוקות שטמנו תאנים מערב שבת ושכחו ולא עשרו למוצאי שבת לא יאכלו אלא אם כן עשרו ותנן נמי המעביר תאנים בחצרו לקצות בניו ובני ביתו אוכלין מהן עראי ופטורים
(34b:2)GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there: (Ma'asrot 4:2) Children who hid figs for themselves in a field on Shabbat eve in order to eat them on Shabbat, and they forgot and did not separate tithes, not only are they prohibited from eating them on Shabbat, for eating on Shabbat is always considered a fixed meal that obligates the produce in tithes, but even after the conclusion of Shabbat, they may not eat until they have separated tithes. And we also learned in a mishna: One who transfers figs in his courtyard in order to make them into dry figs, his children and the members of his household may in the meantime partake of them in a casual manner, and they are exempt from tithes. The fact that the fruit has reached his courtyard, as opposed to his house, is not enough to cause it to be liable for tithing.
(34b:3)בעא מניה רבא מרב נחמן שבת מהו שתקבע מוקצה למעשר בדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו מי אמרינן כיון דכתיב (ישעיהו נח, יג) וקראת לשבת עונג קבעה ואפילו בדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו או דלמא בדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו קבעה בדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו לא קבעה
(34b:3)Based on these two sources, Rava inquired of Rav Naḥman: With regard to Shabbat, what is the halakha in terms of whether it establishes an obligation to tithe food that has been muktze on Shabbat? Specifically, in the case of an item whose labor has not been completed, does the fact that the food is muktze on Shabbat give it the status of completely prepared food, or not? Do we say that since it is written: “And call Shabbat a delight” (Isaiah 58:13), this implies that any food one eats on Shabbat is considered a delight and not a casual meal, and therefore Shabbat establishes an obligation to tithe, as if the food were fully completed and fit to be eaten as a fixed meal, even for an item that has not had its labor completed? Or perhaps Shabbat establishes an obligation to tithe an item whose labor is completed, but regarding an item whose labor is not completed it does not establish an obligation to tithe?
(34b:4)א"ל שבת קובעת בין בדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו בין בדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו א"ל ואימא שבת דומיא דחצר מה חצר אינה קובעת אלא בדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו אף שבת לא תקבע אלא בדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו א"ל לימוד ערוך הוא בידינו שהשבת קובעת בין בדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו בין בדבר שלא נגמרה מלאכתו
(34b:4)Rav Naḥman said to Rava: Shabbat establishes the obligation for tithes, both with regard to an item whose work is completed and things whose work is not completed. Rava said to Rav Naḥman and challenged: But say that the law of Shabbat should be similar to that of a courtyard: Just as a courtyard establishes food placed inside it as a fixed meal with regard to tithes only when the work on an item is completed, so too, Shabbat should establish only an item whose work is completed as liable for tithing. Rav Naḥman said to Rava: I did not say this based on my own logic, which can be countered by logic of your own. Rather, we have it as an ordered teaching that Shabbat establishes both things whose work is completed and things whose work is not completed.
(34b:5)אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן אף אנן נמי תנינא ועוד אמר רבי אליעזר עומד אדם על המוקצה ערב שבת בשביעית וכו' טעמא דשביעית דלאו בר עשורי הוא הא בשאר שני שבוע הכי נמי דאסור מ"ט לאו משום דשבת קבעה
(34b:5)Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: We, too, have learned in the mishna: And Rabbi Eliezer further stated that a person may stand over objects in the storage area on Shabbat eve during the Sabbatical Year and say: I will eat from here and here. The reason is that it is fruit of the Sabbatical Year, with regard to which one is not obligated to separate tithes. However, if it occurred in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle, so too, you will say that it is prohibited to eat them without separating tithes. What is the reason for this? Is it not because Shabbat establishes them with regard to tithes, and consequently they may not be eaten until tithes have been separated?
(34b:6)לא שאני התם כיון דאמר מכאן אני אוכל למחר קבע ליה עלויה אי הכי מאי אריא שבת אפילו בחול נמי הא קמ"ל דטבל מוכן הוא אצל שבת שאם עבר ותקנו מתוקן
(34b:6)The Gemara refutes this: This is no proof, for there it is different: Since he said: From here I will eat tomorrow, he has immediately established for himself a meal with them, by stating his intention to eat the food as it is. The Gemara asks: If so, why does the mishna mention particularly Shabbat? Even if one said so on a weekday the same should also apply. Since he has set them aside for his meal, they are considered finished and are liable to tithes. The Gemara answers: This comes to teach us the following: One should not conclude that untithed produce is inherently muktze because one may not separate the tithes and eat it; rather, it is considered prepared with regard to Shabbat, in that if one transgressed the words of the Sages and corrected it by separating the tithes, it is considered corrected.
