More Discussions for this daf
1. Is a wick a keli? 2. Rashi's and Rashba's explanation of the Gemara 3. Being Metaher a Wick According to Rebbi Akiva
4. Animal Hides Fit for STaM 5. Tum'ah on Behemah Teme'ah 6. Wick from a Beged
7. טומאת מאהיל
DAF DISCUSSIONS - SHABBOS 28

Menashe Berglas asks:

The gemarah in Shabos on 28b, says that Rebbi Akivah holds that you can use a cloth that is 3*3 fingerbreadths on Friday yom tov to light as a wick for Shabos as long as you rolled it up prior to Yom Tov, this way since you made a Shinu Masseh it is no longer a utensil and you are not breaking it on Yom Tov.

However the Gemarah in Sukah on 30b says that a Shinu Masseh that can be returned to its original status, such as an Hoshanah within a tied up Lulav that can be untied, is not a proper Shinu Masseh. So how can Rebbi Akivah hold this is a Shinu Masseh as the cloth can easily be unfolded and then become a utensil once again?

Thank you,

Menashe Berglas, Brooklyn, NY US

The Kollel replies:

This is an excellent question. It is asked by Rav Moshe Feinstein zt'l in Dibros Moshe in our Sugya (26:63).

1. The Dibros Moshe writes that Rebbi Akiva considers the folding as a Shinuy even though it could return to its original status, because the Shinuy required to remove the possibility that a utensil can receive Tum'ah is less than the level of Shinuy required for a thief to acquire a stolen item. The Dibros Moshe asserts that according to Rabah in Bava Kama (66a), even a Shinuy which can be returned is still effective to acquire the object mid'Oraisa for the thief. If such a Shinuy can place the item into the possession of the thief mid'Oraisa (for the purpose that if something unforseeable happens to the stolen property, then the thief would be liable), then it certainly may make the cloth no longer considered a utensil, so that Tum'ah which has not yet touched it will not be able to make it Tamei when it does touch it.

2. I found, bs'd, a source for the above argument in Teshuvos Panim Me'iros 1:87 (cited in Sha'arei Teshuvah to OC 84:1, printed in the Mishneh Berurah). He cites Rashi in Sukah that even the slightest action is effective to remove from the utensil the possibility of receiving Tum'ah. I think he is referring to Rashi in Sukah 14a, DH Ma'aseh, who writes that although someone performed a clear Ma'aseh that proves that he intended to make leather into a table, nevertheless once he takes his knife in order to cut up the leather in order to make sandals, this cancels the first Ma'aseh, and the leather intended originally to be made into a table is no longer capable of receiving Tum'ah, even though he has not yet actually cut up the leather to make the sandals but has merely placed the knife there in preparation for doing so.

3. In short, one can make a distinction between the kind of change necessary for a thief to acquire an object and the kind of change required to make this object no longer considered a utensil that can receive Tum'ah. The Gemara in Sukah (30b) is referring to the change done by the thief. To effect a legal transaction the change must be significant, and thus if it is returnable it is not considered a Shinuy. In contrast, the Gemara in Shabbos (28b) refers to the change necessary to render the item no longer a utensil which can receive Tum'ah in the future. For these purposes, even a slight change suffices, and therefore a returnable change is also considered a change.

(See also Teshuvos ha'Elef Lecha Shlomo, OC #367, DH u'Mah she'Hiksheh by Rav Shlomo Kluger.)

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Michael Berglas adds:

Thanks for this answer. It is amazing.

I would further assume that according to Rebbe Akiva, if one decided tounbundle this wick on yom tov (or Shabbos) that it would be Nolad, howeverif one has a handkerchief or washcloth rolled to less the 3*3 not for use asa wick, but because it is easier to pack in a drawer that way, then unfolding it would be okay, since there was no previous intent to use this as a wick. If so, that would lead to the interesting question where I have 2 identical handkerchiefs in a drawer, both rolled up, and I would be allowed to unroll 1 on yom tov but not the other.

Thanks

The Kollel replies:

I think that our Sugya is not discussing the sort of folding one would do with a handkerchief or washcloth. Rashi on the Mishnah writes that the Beged was folded in the way that one plaits a wick. This is a much more intricate folding than one might do on a handkerchief merely to enable it to fit it into a drawer. Even Rebbi Akiva would agree that the latter sort of folding does not remove the status of a utensil from the handkerchief.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom