The Eri B. Sitt Edition is an audio series of the Talmud Bavli. Tractate Betza has been dedicated anonymously for the complete recovery of Meir ben Ester. We have not forgotten him—because he is a son of the people of Israel. Amen.
Tractate Betza has also been dedicated for the recovery of Sarah bat Mazal. We bless our anonymous sponsor that, with God’s help, he should be blessed with health, and that, with God’s help, he should soon be able to build a family and continue all his good work for the community. Amen.
Today’s study has been dedicated by Mr. Eddie B. Sitt in honor of Mr. Uri Nadam. May God grant them life. Amen.
We are studying page 32. The study is לעילוי נשמת אברהם בן אסתר, for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Ester. May God settle him in the Garden of Eden. Amen.
We begin on page 32, a few lines down, with the word “Shatartza.” Let us briefly review yesterday’s discussion.
We had the opinion of Shmuel concerning seals attached to the ground. These were ropes used to tie down the covers of cisterns in the ground. Regarding such seals, one may untie the ropes, but one may not unravel, break, or cut them. Why? Because doing so is considered demolishing, and since the ropes are attached to the ground, demolishing something attached to the ground is prohibited.
However, if the ropes are attached to vessels rather than to the ground, one may do whatever is necessary. In the construction and demolition of vessels, there is no prohibition of this kind. One may even take a knife, cut the ropes, and destroy them.
The Gemara challenged Shmuel’s ruling. How could Shmuel say that on Yom Tov one may only untie the ropes but may not break or cut them? We learned in the Mishnah that if a person has produce in a room and bricks are blocking the entrance, he may break down the wall on Yom Tov in order to reach the produce. Breaking down the wall is a form of demolition, although in this case it is only a rabbinic prohibition. Nevertheless, the Mishnah permits a person to violate a rabbinic prohibition of demolition for the sake of Yom Tov.
If so, when a person wants to access water in a cistern and breaking the ropes is only a rabbinic prohibition, it should also be permissible.
The Gemara answered that Shmuel was following the view of the Sages in the Mishnah. The Mishnah records one opinion that permits breaking down the wall to reach the produce, but the Sages prohibit it. Shmuel follows the Sages.
The Gemara then asked: What are you saying? We have a teaching that clearly indicates that even the Sages who prohibit breaking the wall in the case of the produce permit breaking the ropes in this case. We explained, based on the discussion of the Shach, that the Sages are lenient because, in the case of the wall, there are two separate issues. The bricks of the wall are attached to the ground, whereas the ropes themselves are not attached to the ground. Therefore, the Sages are lenient regarding the ropes.
Returning to Shmuel, the Gemara explains that he relies on another Tanna. We read: “Regarding seals attached to the ground, one may untie them, but one may not break or cut them, whether on Shabbat or on Yom Tov.” This is precisely Shmuel’s position.
However, the teaching continues: “Regarding seals attached to a vessel, on Shabbat one may untie them, but one may not break or cut them.” On Yom Tov, by contrast, one may do everything. The first part of the teaching agrees with Shmuel regarding seals attached to the ground, but the latter part does not agree with him. Shmuel said that when the seals are attached to a vessel, one may do everything on both Shabbat and Yom Tov.
The Gemara resolves this by saying that the first part of the teaching follows one opinion and the latter part follows another. The first part is the opinion of Rabbi Nehemiah, who says that vessels may be moved on Shabbat only for their designated use.
We previously discussed Rabbi Nehemiah’s unusual position concerning vessels and their use on Shabbat. Let us take a knife as an example. What is the primary function of a knife? Let us say that it is used to cut meat. Its primary function is not to cut ropes.
Our usual position is that as long as cutting the ropes is a permitted use, one may use the knife for that purpose; the knife is not considered set aside, since one is using it for a permitted activity. Rabbi Nehemiah, however, says that a vessel may be moved on Shabbat only for its primary function. A knife is meant to cut meat, not ropes. Therefore, according to Rabbi Nehemiah, the knife may not be moved in order to cut the ropes.
Accordingly, when the teaching says that if the seals are attached to a vessel one may break them on Shabbat, there is no problem with the act of destroying the ropes. The problem is that the knife may not be moved for this use, since cutting ropes is not its primary function.
The Gemara then asks: If Rabbi Nehemiah is stringent regarding set-aside objects on Shabbat, he should also be stringent on Yom Tov. Why, then, does the teaching say that on Yom Tov one may break or cut the ropes?
The Gemara answers that perhaps the laws of set-aside objects on Shabbat are more stringent than those on Yom Tov. It is possible that on Shabbat a knife may not be moved because cutting ropes is not its primary function, whereas on Yom Tov the restriction is more lenient.
The Gemara brings a series of teachings to determine whether Rabbi Nehemiah is indeed lenient regarding Yom Tov.
The first teaching states that on Yom Tov one may use a wooden vessel as fuel. Since the vessel is not set aside, one may pick it up, use it for drinking or eating, and also throw it into the fire. However, one may not use broken pieces of vessels as fuel, because once the vessel breaks, the fragments are considered newly created objects and are set aside.
The second teaching says that one may use both whole vessels and broken pieces of vessels as fuel. This teaching is evidently not concerned with the prohibition of newly created objects.
A third teaching says that one may use neither whole vessels nor broken pieces of vessels as fuel.
The Gemara reconciles these teachings by attributing them to different authorities. The first teaching, which permits whole vessels but prohibits broken pieces, follows Rabbi Yehudah, who accepts the prohibition of newly created objects. Whole vessels are not set aside, but broken pieces are.
The second teaching, which permits both whole vessels and broken pieces, follows Rabbi Shimon, who is lenient regarding newly created objects.
The third teaching, which prohibits even whole vessels, follows Rabbi Nehemiah. Although a vessel is not set aside, its primary function is to be used for eating or drinking, not as fuel. Since it may not be moved for a purpose other than its primary use, it may not be placed in the fire.
We therefore see that, regarding Yom Tov, Rabbi Nehemiah is stringent concerning set-aside objects as well. We return to the original question: Perhaps the teaching concerning the seals follows Rabbi Nehemiah, and that is why it prohibits moving the knife on Shabbat. But the same teaching permits breaking the seals on Yom Tov, which seems to show that Rabbi Nehemiah is lenient on Yom Tov. The other teaching, however, indicates that Rabbi Nehemiah is stringent on Yom Tov as well.
The Gemara answers that there is a dispute among Tannaim regarding Rabbi Nehemiah’s position. One Tanna understands that Rabbi Nehemiah distinguishes between Shabbat and Yom Tov. The rule that a vessel may be moved only for its primary use applies on Shabbat but not on Yom Tov. According to that view, Rabbi Nehemiah would permit taking a knife on Yom Tov to break the seals.
Another Tanna understands that Rabbi Nehemiah does not distinguish between Shabbat and Yom Tov. He is stringent on Yom Tov as well, and therefore prohibits using a vessel for a purpose other than its primary function.
With this, the Gemara has answered the difficulty concerning the teaching about the seals. Shmuel can follow the position that the prohibition in that teaching is not due to demolition. In principle, breaking the ropes is permitted. The difficulty is only that, according to Rabbi Nehemiah, one may not move the knife for this purpose. Shmuel does not follow Rabbi Nehemiah in that particular detail. According to Shmuel, the problem is not the knife; one may even use one’s hands to break the ropes, and one may also use a vessel. Thus, this teaching supports Shmuel.
We now proceed to the next Mishnah: “One may not shape a lamp, make a coal, or cut a wick on Yom Tov.” The Mishnah discusses various activities that are prohibited on Yom Tov because a person is making a vessel.
What is a lamp? It is the receptacle used for oil and a wick, which is then lit. A craftsman would take an unformed piece of clay or pottery, shaped roughly like an egg, and pound it with his fist. As he pounded it, a cavity would form. At that point, he had begun making a vessel.
The question is whether creating that cavity is already considered the completion of the vessel. One understanding is that it is still only an early stage of the process and is not yet considered the creation of a vessel. Another understanding is that once the cavity has been made, the vessel is already considered complete for this purpose.
Tosafot explains that after the cavity was formed, they would fill it with straw and place it in the kiln. The straw kept the cavity open so that it would not collapse. They would later remove the straw and return the vessel to the kiln for a second baking. Tosafot says that even removing the straw is already considered a significant stage in the completion of the vessel.
In any event, before the vessel was placed in the kiln for the second time, everyone would agree that it was already considered a vessel. That is the first rule of the Mishnah.
The Mishnah continues: “One may not make coals on Yom Tov.” In earlier times, people did not use coals for cooking in the way that we use them today for a barbecue. Coals were used specifically by jewelers and goldsmiths to heat and soften gold.
Therefore, making a coal on Yom Tov appears to be an activity performed for the creation of a vessel. For a goldsmith, a coal is considered a vessel or a tool. Since one may not make a vessel on Yom Tov, one may not make coals either.
How does one make a coal? One takes a piece of wood, extinguishes it, and it becomes blackened. That activity is prohibited on Yom Tov.
The Mishnah then states: “One may not cut a wick.” If a person has one wick and wants to make two wicks, he cuts it. Since a wick is considered a vessel, creating two wicks is prohibited on Yom Tov.
Rabbi Yehudah says that one may not cut the wick with a vessel, but one may cut it with fire. The Gemara will ask: What difference does it make how the wick is cut? In either case, the final result is that one wick has become two.
The general principle of the Mishnah is that one may not make a vessel on Yom Tov.
The Gemara asks: Who is the author of the Mishnah? Who holds that shaping the lamp before it is placed in the kiln already makes it a vessel?
According to the Mishnah, once a person has pounded the clay and formed a receptacle, it is already considered a vessel. The Gemara asks who maintains that this early stage is sufficient to give the object the status of a vessel—not only with regard to the prohibition of making a vessel on Yom Tov, but also with regard to susceptibility to ritual impurity.
We know that, for purposes of ritual impurity, a clay vessel must have a receptacle and must be considered a completed vessel. If it is unfinished, it does not become susceptible to impurity. Who, then, considers the object a vessel at this stage?
Rav Yosef answers that it is Rabbi Meir. A teaching states: “At what stage does a clay vessel become susceptible to ritual impurity? Once the work of hollowing it out has been completed.” According to Rabbi Meir, once the cavity has been formed, even before the vessel is placed in the kiln, it is already considered a vessel.
Another opinion says that a clay vessel is not considered a vessel until it has actually been placed in the kiln. The fire strengthens the vessel and completes the process. Different materials are strengthened in different ways. A metal vessel, for example, may be strengthened by heating it and placing it in cold water. Clay, by contrast, is strengthened by placing it in the oven and heating it.
This is the dispute. The Mishnah appears to follow Rabbi Meir, who says that once the cavity has been formed, the object is already considered a vessel.
The Gemara challenges this conclusion. Who says that our Mishnah follows Rabbi Meir? Perhaps the Mishnah says that the object is susceptible to ritual impurity not because it is already a completed vessel, but because it has a receptacle. Once an object has a receptacle, perhaps it receives impurity even though the material is still soft.
We need to determine whether merely creating a receptacle is enough. In the case before us, the clay is still soft, and the vessel has not yet been placed in the kiln. Perhaps the Mishnah is saying only that a receptacle has been formed, not that the entire vessel has been completed.
The Gemara responds that the small lamp could not yet be used for its intended purpose. Since the clay was still soft, one could not place oil in it, because the oil would soften the clay and cause the vessel to collapse. What, then, could be placed in it?
The Gemara suggests that one could place vinegar in it. But vinegar would also soften the clay and dissolve it. Perhaps one could place fruit in it. The Gemara rejects this as well, because fruit would not be the intended use of such a lamp.
The Gemara ultimately says that one could place coins in it. Even though the vessel could not yet be used for its intended purpose of holding oil, it could be used as a receptacle for something dry, such as coins. Therefore, it is considered a vessel.
This is why the Mishnah can follow Rabbi Meir. The vessel has a final use for some purpose, even if not yet for its intended purpose. The fact that it can hold coins is enough to give it the status of a vessel.
There is another version of the discussion. Rav Yosef again asks who is the author of the Mishnah that says that once one pounds the clay and creates a receptacle, one is liable for making a vessel. The answer is Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Tzadok.
Where do we find this position? We learned in a Mishnah about village platters. These were flat plates made by villagers who were not particular about producing beautiful or carefully shaped vessels. They would take a piece of clay, flatten it without completing it in the usual manner, and use it as a platter.
The Mishnah discusses whether such a platter is susceptible to ritual impurity. The ordinary rule is that a clay vessel becomes susceptible to impurity only when it has a receptacle. The Torah speaks about a vessel that can receive something. A completely flat object with no receptacle is not ordinarily considered a vessel for this purpose.
Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Tzadok, however, say that even if the platter has no formal receptacle, it can become susceptible to impurity. The case involves a person holding a stick and moving the platter with the stick. Although the platter itself is not being directly touched, it becomes susceptible through this movement.
From here, some understood that the platter does not require a formal hollow or receptacle. Even before the usual stage of hollowing it out, it can already be considered a vessel.
This would support the position that the author of our Mishnah is Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Tzadok. According to them, once a person forms the vessel to the point that it can hold something, it is considered a vessel. Consequently, on Yom Tov, once the cavity has been formed, the person has made a vessel and is prohibited from doing so.
The early authorities point out that our Mishnah could also follow the anonymous first opinion in that teaching. That opinion is even more stringent and says that the platter is considered a vessel even before the cavity has been formed. Certainly, once the cavity has been formed, it is considered a vessel and becomes susceptible to impurity.
Why, then, does the Gemara identify the author as Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Tzadok rather than as the anonymous first opinion? Since the identity of the anonymous opinion is not known, the Gemara prefers to attribute the Mishnah to named authorities. Nevertheless, it could also follow the anonymous opinion.
Abaye challenges this as well. Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Tzadok say that the platter is susceptible to impurity because it can already be used to hold something. The platter is large enough that one can place food on it. Therefore, once it has a receptacle, it can serve a practical purpose.
The lamp in our Mishnah, however, is different. When the small receptacle is formed, one cannot place oil in it, because the clay is still soft. Perhaps it should not yet be considered a vessel.
The Gemara answers that one can place coins in it. It is not necessary that the object be usable for the purpose for which it was originally intended. As long as it can serve as a receptacle for some item, it is considered a completed vessel for this purpose.
Thus, the Gemara has identified two possible authors for the Mishnah: Rabbi Meir, or Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Tzadok.
A further teaching states: “One may not shape a lamp, nor make village platters, on Yom Tov.” This is the anonymous first opinion. It holds that even before a formal receptacle has been made, the process has reached a stage at which the object is considered a vessel.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits making the village platters. According to him, until the cavity has been formed, the object is not considered a completed vessel, and the activity is not prohibited.
The Gemara asks about the meaning of the word used for these village platters. It explains that they are vessels made by villagers, as opposed to vessels made in the large cities. The people in the cities were more particular about making their vessels attractive and carefully shaped. The villagers were less particular. They would simply flatten a piece of clay and use it as a platter, without forming it into a refined vessel.
The Gemara then returns to the prohibition against making coals on Yom Tov. The Mishnah says that one may not make coals because it appears that one is making a vessel or tool for a goldsmith. The Gemara asks: Why would anyone think that making coals might be permitted? Since coals were not being used for cooking, it is obvious that the activity should be prohibited.
The Gemara answers that the discussion concerns coals made for the bathhouse attendant. In those times, the bathhouse attendant heated water with coals. A person might want to bathe in hot water on Yom Tov, and one could therefore have thought that making coals for this purpose should be permitted.
At first, the Gemara suggests that the coals were made before Yom Tov and given to the bathhouse attendant so that he could heat the water before Yom Tov. The person would then have hot water available on Yom Tov.
However, the Sages had already decreed that even water heated before Yom Tov may not be used for bathing on Yom Tov. The bathhouse attendants were suspected of heating the water on Yom Tov while claiming that it had been heated beforehand. Therefore, the Sages prohibited bathing in hot water even when it was supposedly heated before Yom Tov.
How, then, could the Mishnah be discussing coals for the bathhouse? The Gemara answers that there was an earlier period when bathing was still permitted, although entering a steam room was permitted for a time even after bathing in hot water had been prohibited.
At that stage, a person might have thought that making coals was permitted because the coals were being used to heat the bathhouse. The Mishnah teaches that it is still prohibited, because making coals resembles the creation of a tool for a goldsmith.
The Gemara then returns to the final ruling of the Mishnah concerning the wick. The Mishnah says that one may not cut a wick into two, but Rabbi Yehudah permits doing so with fire. The Gemara asks: What difference does it make whether the wick is cut with a knife or with fire? In either case, one wick has become two, and a vessel has been created.
The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehudah is discussing a particular situation. A person places the two ends of one wick into two separate lamp receptacles, forming an arch between them. He wants to light both wicks. He brings the flame to the middle, and the fire separates the two portions while lighting both of them.
In this case, it does not appear that the person is making a vessel. His apparent action is lighting the wicks. The fact that the wick becomes divided into two is merely a result of the lighting. Therefore, Rabbi Yehudah permits cutting the wick with fire when the purpose is to light both portions.
The Gemara then discusses the law that one may trim a wick on Yom Tov. What does trimming mean? The Gemara explains that sometimes a blackened portion forms on the top of the wick. If the person lights it in that condition, the black portion prevents the flame from burning brightly. He therefore trims the top of the wick to improve the flame.
According to this explanation, the teaching is permitting a person to make a minor adjustment to an existing wick. He is not making a new vessel; he is simply removing the blackened portion that prevents the wick from burning properly.
Tosafot compares this discussion with a passage we studied earlier. On page 22, the Gemara used a different expression for trimming the head of a wick. Tosafot asks why the two passages use different terms if they are discussing the same activity.
Tosafot explains that there are two types of trimming. One type is performed while the lamp is burning. The wick is lit, but a blackened coal on top prevents the flame from rising properly. The person adjusts or removes the blackened portion while the wick is burning so that the flame will burn more brightly.
The other type is performed after the flame has gone out. The blackened portion is removed so that the wick will ignite more quickly the next time it is used. These are two different activities. The trimming discussed in the earlier passage is the type done after the lamp has gone out, whereas the trimming discussed here is performed while the lamp is burning.
The Gemara then lists additional laws concerning wicks. One may not twist or spin the material to create a wick. A person takes cotton or another material and twists it together so that it will function as a wick. This is considered the creation of a vessel.
One may also not singe a wick on Yom Tov. Before a wick is used, it may not catch the flame properly. A person might therefore want to singe it so that it will ignite more easily. This is called preparing the wick and is also prohibited as the creation of a vessel.
Similarly, one may not cut a wick into two, because doing so creates two usable wicks.
There is, however, a leniency when the wick has already been made by the workers. If a person merely wants to flatten it slightly or improve its shape, he may do so with the oil itself. Since the wick was already made, he is not creating a new vessel. He is only adjusting it so that the oil will enter the wick more effectively and the flame will burn properly.
The Gemara then turns to a teaching about the wealthy people of Babylonia and their lack of compassion. Shabtai bar Marinos once came to Babylonia. He asked the wealthy people to give him merchandise so that he could sell it, take a small profit, and enter into a business partnership with them. They refused.
He then asked them merely to give him food so that he could survive. They did not even give him that. He said that these people could not be Jewish and must descend from the mixed multitude that left Egypt with the Jewish people. Those people had converted, but not with complete sincerity; they joined the Jewish people for their own purposes.
He explained that the Torah says that God will grant the Jewish people compassion and that they will show compassion to one another. Anyone who has compassion for other creatures demonstrates that he descends from Avraham Avinu. Conversely, anyone who does not show compassion demonstrates that he does not descend from the descendants of Avraham Avinu.
The Gemara therefore says that these people will descend to Gehinnom. Avraham Avinu sits at the entrance to Gehinnom and rescues anyone who descends from him. Since these people are considered not to descend from Avraham Avinu, he will not protect them at the entrance. That is why the Gemara says that they will descend to Gehinnom.
Rav Natan bar Abba said in the name of Rav that anyone who anticipates being supported at another person’s table has a darkened world. The verse says, “They wander for bread.” A person runs around wondering where his bread will come from, and what he has in his hand feels like darkness.
There are several explanations for this statement. One explanation is that a person who is hungry and dependent on others cannot eat according to his own schedule. He must wait until the head of the household comes home and gives him food. Hunger itself can affect a person physically and cause him to lose his clarity. In this sense, his world is dark.
Others explain the statement spiritually. A person who has no food of his own and is dependent on another person must conduct himself with great sensitivity. If he eats in someone else’s home, he should arrive before the host, because he should not cause the host to wait for him. After the meal, he cannot simply leave immediately; he must remain for the after-blessing and the other customary parts of the meal. Eating at another person’s table therefore takes considerable time.
If a person has food of his own, he can sit down, eat, and return to the study hall. But when he depends on others, the process takes much longer, and this can result in a loss of Torah study. In that sense, his world becomes dark.
The Gemara adds that such a person’s life is not considered a life. The commentators explain that this may refer to someone who was poor and dependent on others but later became wealthy. One might think that his problem has now disappeared. The Gemara says that even after he becomes wealthy, the experience remains with him.
When he encounters the people who once supported him, he feels embarrassed. Although he is now wealthy, he remembers that these people once had to feed him when he was in need. The embarrassment remains even after his financial situation improves, and therefore his life is still not completely a life.
The Gemara lists three situations in which a person’s life is not a life. The first is dependence on another person’s table. The second is a wife who dominates her husband.
The Ben Yehoyada explains that this refers to a wife who supports her husband financially. Since she provides his livelihood, she dominates him. Even if she says something incorrect, he cannot respond as he would otherwise, because he depends on her for his livelihood. His life is therefore not a life, because he is controlled by the person who supports him.
The third case is a person whose body is tormented. Some explain that this refers to someone who owns only one shirt. He cannot take it off and wash it, and lice accumulate in it. He must continue wearing the shirt even though it is full of lice, and such a person has no comfort in life.
It was suggested that perhaps he could simply remove the shirt, shake it out, and get rid of the lice. If so, there is at least some way out of the situation. In any event, the Gemara presents these three cases as situations in which a person’s life is not a life.
We now proceed to the next Mishnah. The Mishnah discusses a person who has a griddle that becomes extremely hot. He wants to place a delicate fish on it in order to cook or fry it, but the heat of the griddle will burn the fish.
In earlier times, people would place something over the griddle to protect the fish. They might take a piece of clay pottery, break it, and place the shard on the griddle before putting the fish on top. Alternatively, they might take a piece of material from the yard, wet it, and place it over the griddle so that the fish would not burn.
The Mishnah teaches that on Yom Tov one may not break the pottery for this purpose, because breaking it creates a usable vessel or utensil. The shard, as it exists originally, is not suitable for this particular function. Breaking it creates a small, flat piece that can be placed on the griddle to protect the fish. That is considered the making of a vessel.
Similarly, one may not cut the piece of material for this purpose, because cutting it into the required shape also creates an object intended for a specific use.
The Mishnah then discusses cleaning the oven. One may not sweep or clear out the oven on Yom Tov. The oven may have ashes and other residue inside it, and there may also be deposits on the sides. The Mishnah prohibits removing them.
There are several explanations for this prohibition. Rashi explains that smoothing the floor of the oven may involve filling in holes and leveling the surface. This could constitute a form of construction or finishing work.
Tosafot does not accept that explanation. Tosafot says that the Mishnah may be discussing a new oven that has not yet been used. The final stage in making the oven functional is clearing it out and preparing it for use. That act of preparation is prohibited.
Others explain that one may not clear the oven because the ashes are considered set aside. For these different reasons, clearing the oven is prohibited on Yom Tov.
The Mishnah also discusses smoothing ashes. If there are ashes in the oven and a person wants to place bread inside, he may need to flatten the ashes. Otherwise, the bread may touch the hot ashes and be ruined. The Mishnah permits smoothing the ashes in order to prevent the bread from touching them.
Another case involves two barrels. One may not place two barrels next to each other, put a fire between them, and then place a pot on top of the two barrels. This resembles the construction of an oven. The two barrels form the walls, and the pot placed on top functions like a roof. Since this arrangement resembles building, it is prohibited on Yom Tov.
The Mishnah also says that one may not support a pot with a piece of wood. We will see the precise reason for this prohibition. One may not take a door and use it as support for the pot, either.
Finally, one may not take a stick on Yom Tov and use it to guide an animal. The initial assumption is that wood is designated for a particular purpose, such as burning, and therefore one may not use ordinary wood for another purpose on Yom Tov.
Rashi explains the permission to smooth the ashes as follows: The person levels the ashes so that the bread will not touch the material at the bottom of the oven. If the ashes are uneven and the bread touches the hot area, the bread will burn. Therefore, he may smooth the ashes.
Rashi also explains that placing the barrels next to one another and placing the pot on top resembles construction. Whenever a person places a pot on a stove or another support, that act is called placing the pot. In this case, because there is no ordinary tripod or stove, he creates a substitute arrangement with the two barrels.
Regarding the piece of wood, Rashi explains that wood is normally designated for burning. Therefore, at this point in the discussion, we assume that one may not use it for another purpose.
The Gemara asks why the Mishnah prohibits breaking pottery to place it on the griddle or cutting material to protect the fish. The answer seems obvious: the person is making a utensil. The Gemara then asks why the Mishnah prohibits clearing the oven.
A teaching is brought in the name of Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef before Rav Nachman. The discussion concerns whether clearing the oven is considered a preparation necessary for food. Some authorities hold that activities directly involved in preparing food are permitted on Yom Tov, but preparatory activities—activities that make the cooking possible—are prohibited.
According to that opinion, clearing the oven is a preparatory act. It is not the actual cooking or baking; it merely prepares the oven so that the cooking can take place. The Mishnah would therefore follow the view that such preparatory activities are prohibited.
However, we previously learned that even according to the stringent opinion, a preparatory activity may be performed on Yom Tov if it could not have been performed before Yom Tov. In our case, if ashes or a brick fell into the oven on Yom Tov and, without removing them, the person would be unable to bake or cook, then he may clear the oven.
Rashi explains that this is the lenient position of Rabbi Yehudah. If the obstacle arose on Yom Tov and there is no other way to bake or cook, the person may remove it.
A story is told about the wife of Rabbi Hiyya. A brick from the side of the oven fell into the oven itself. She hesitated to remove it, because clearing the oven might be prohibited and the brick might be considered set aside. As a result, she was not going to bake.
Rabbi Hiyya told her to bake good bread. His meaning was that she should not make inferior bread merely because she was reluctant to clear the oven. Since the fallen brick prevented her from baking properly, she was permitted to remove it.
Rabbah similarly told his servant to prepare a goose for him on Yom Tov. He instructed him to be careful that it should not burn. The ovens of that time were small, with an opening at the top. They would hang the goose from the opening so that it would roast inside the oven.
If there were ashes in the oven, the goose could touch them and burn. Therefore, Rabbah was telling his servant to clear the ashes from the oven. The same principle applies: if the ashes prevent proper cooking, they may be removed.
Rashi explains that the goose was hung from the opening at the top of the oven, and the opening was then sealed. The heat would roast the goose. The servant was warned to avoid burning it and to ensure that the bottom of the oven was not raised or uneven, because if the goose touched the hot base, it would burn.
The Gemara then discusses how they sealed the opening of the oven. They would take mud, mix it with water, and use it to seal the opening so that air would not enter. The problem is that mixing the mud and water is a form of kneading, which is prohibited on Yom Tov.
The Gemara explains that they relied on the abundance of ready-made mud in the Euphrates River. Since they lived in Babylonia, they could take mud that was already mixed. They did not need to perform the prohibited act of mixing it on Yom Tov.
The Gemara adds that the mud still had to be collected and designated before Yom Tov. A person had to gather it, place it aside, and mark it so that it would be clear that it was intended for use on Yom Tov. Otherwise, it would be considered set aside and could not be used.
Rashi explains that the banks of the Euphrates contained prepared mud. Nevertheless, the person had to designate the particular mud with a sign and set it aside before Yom Tov. Once it had been designated, he could take it and use it to seal the oven.
The Gemara concludes by considering the use of ashes. Perhaps one may use ashes to seal the oven. When water is poured onto ashes, the mixture does not become fully congealed in the same way as ordinary earth and water. Therefore, perhaps it would be permitted.
Tosafot challenges this explanation. We know that even placing water on ordinary ashes can involve the prohibition of kneading. If a person places ashes in a vessel and another person adds water, the person who adds the water may be liable. Why, then, can one say that ashes are different?
The Gemara is therefore understood to mean that one may seal the oven with dry ashes, without adding water. That would be permitted. Alternatively, if the water was added before Yom Tov, there may be a distinction, because the prohibited act is the addition of the water.
However, another difficulty arises. Even if the water was added before Yom Tov, when the person later picks up the mixture, it may begin to congeal. The discussion therefore continues by examining whether the mixture made from ashes can be used, and under what conditions.