Shabbat

If he threw it away whilst yet day  it is forbidden. Bar Hamduri said in Samuel's name: Shreds of reeds detached from a mat may be handled on the Sabbath. What is the reason? — Said Raba, Bar Hamduri explained it to me: What is the [reed-] mat itself fit for? For covering the earth. These too are fit for covering dirt. R. Zera said in Rab's name: Pieces of silk of aprons may not be handled on the Sabbath. Said Abaye: This refers to rags less than three [fingerbreadths] square, which are of no use to rich or poor. Our Rabbis taught: The fragments of an old oven  are like all utensils which may be handled in a courtyard: this is R. Meir's view. R. Judah said: They may not be handled. R. Jose testified in the name of R. Eleazar b. Jacob concerning the fragments of an old oven that they may be handled on the Sabbath, and concerning its lid [of the oven] that it does not require a handle.  Wherein do they differ? — Said Abaye: where they perform something in the nature of work;' but not in the nature of their own [former] work,  R. Judah being consistent with his view, and R. Meir with his.  Raba demurred: If so, instead of disputing about the fragments of an oven, let them dispute about the fragments of utensils in general? Rather said Raba: They dispute about the fragments of the following oven. For we learnt: If he sets it [the oven] over the mouth of a pit or a cellar and places a stone there, — R. Judah said: If one can heat it from underneath and it is [thereby] heated above, it is unclean; if not, it is clean. But the Sages maintain: Since it can in any wise be heated, it is unclean.  And wherein do they differ? In this verse; Whether oven, or range of pots, it shall be torn down: they are unclean, shall be unclean unto you.  R. Judah holds: Where tearing down is wanting it is unclean, whilst where tearing down is not wanting it is not unclean.  Whereas the Rabbis hold: 'They shall be unclean unto you' [implies] in all cases.  But the Rabbis too, surely it is written, 'it shall be torn down'? — That is [intended] in the opposite direction:  for one might argue, Since it is attached to the ground, it is like the very ground itself;  therefore it informs us [otherwise].  And the other [R. Judah] too, surely 'they shall be unclean unto you' is written? — That [is explained] as Rab Judah's dictum in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: They differ only in respect of the first firing,  but at the second firing,  even if it is suspended to a camel's neck.  'Ulla observed: And as for the first firing, according to the Rabbis, even if it is suspended from a camel's neck!  R. Ashi demurred: If so, instead of disputing about the fragments of the oven, let them dispute about the oven itself;  [for] seeing that the oven itself, according to R. Judah, is not a utensil, need the fragments [be mentioned]? Rather said R. Ashi: In truth it is as we originally stated, and (the controversy is] where it [the fragment] can serve as a [baking] tile,  whilst R. Meir argues on R. Judah's opinion. [Thus:] according to my view, even if they [the fragments] can perform something in the nature of [any] work;  but even on your view, you must at least agree with me [here] that in such a case, it is its own work. But R. Judah [argues]: It is dissimilar. There it is heated from within, here it is heated from without; there it stands, here it does not stand. 'R. Jose testified in the name of R. Eleazar b. Jacob concerning the fragments of an old oven, that they may be handled on the Sabbath, and concerning its lid, that it does not require a handle.' Rabina said: In accordance with whom do we handle nowadays the oven lids of the town Mehasia  which have no handle? In accordance with whom? R. Eleazar b. Jacob. MISHNAH. IF A STONE [IS PLACED] IN A PUMPKIN SHELL,  AND ONE CAN DRAW [WATER] IN IT AND IT [THE STONE] DOES NOT FALL OUT,  ONE MAY DRAW [WATER] IN IT; IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT DRAW WATER IN IT.