Rif Shabbat 12b

HIDE/SHOW IMAGE
12b

{Shabbat 27b continues}
CANNOT BE DEFILED WITH THE UNCLEANNESS OF TENTS, EXCEPT LINEN.

{Shabbat 28b}
A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH WHICH WAS TWISTED BUT NOT SINGED, — R. ELIEZER SAID: IT IS UNCLEAN, AND ONE MAY NOT LIGHT [THE SABBATH LAMP] THEREWITH;

R. AKIBA MAINTAINED: IT IS CLEAN, AND ONE MAY LIGHT THEREWITH.

Gemara:
{Note: in the following discussion, there are two types of 3x3. One is 3x3 handbreadths, and one is 3x3 finger widths. The way to distinguish between the two is the gender of the number in Hebrew, and occasionally a gloss will emend the text in this regard. Note I aso use clean/pure interchangeably}

"A WICK [MADE] OF A CLOTH {garment}," the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva in the gemara is as follows:
All is well in terms of ritual impurity that in this they argue, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that twisting does not work {to remove it from the status of a garment, and thus susceptibility to contracting ritual impurity}, and Rabbi Akiva holds that twisting does work.
But in terms of lighting, in what do they argue?
Rabbi Eleazar cited Rabbi Oshaya, and so said Rav Adda bar Ahava: In 3x3 {fingers} exactly are we dealing {in the Mishna} and on Yom Tov that falls out on Friday {erev Shabbat, when you would be lighting Shabbat candles}, and all hold by the statement of Rav Yehuda citing Rav Rabbi Yehuda that "One may fire [an oven, etc.,] with [whole] utensils, but not with broken utensils" {for newly broken vessels are considered nolad, something created anew on Yom Tov, and would be forbidden} and all hold of the statement of Ulla that "He who lights must light the greater part [of the wick] which protrudes."
Rabbi Eliezer holds that twisting does not work, and thus it {the wick} stands in its former status, and when he lights a bit of it, it is {becomes} a broken utensil, and thus when he is lighting, he is lighting with a broken utensil.
And Rabbi Akiva holds that twisting suffices, and thus when he lights, he does so permissibly.

Rabbi Yosa said: This that the brayta said that it referred to 3x3 {fingers} exactly, I did not know for what halacha it was coming.

And from the fact that Rav Adda bar Ahava answered according to Rabbi Yehuda, we may deduce from this that he holds like Rabbi Yehuda.
And does Rav Adda bar Ahava indeed say {hold} this?

{Shabbat 29a}
But Rav Adda bar Ahava said: If a gentile hollows out a kav in a log, an Israelite may heat [the oven] therewith on a Yom Tov, and not worry. And if he held like Rav Yehuda, it is nolad {something created anew on Yom Tov}, and is forbidden.
And they answer in the gemara that he was answering within the opinions of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, but he himself does not hold like Rabbi Yehuda.

(And why? When he lights a bit of it he makes it into a broken utensil, and when he turns it, he turns it with a broken utensil. He said to him: the reason of the Mishna he is explaining, but he himself does not hold like Rabbi Yehuda.)

Rava said: This is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer: That we do not light with a wick which is not singed, nor with an unsinged rag.

But then this that Rav Yosef taught {tnei}, "The three {handbreads} [fingerbreadths] that they spoke about were exact," in terms of what halacha was this taught?
In terms of impurity, and as we learned in a brayta: "The three {handbreads} [fingerbreadths] that they spoke about were excluding the hem. These are the words of Rabbi Shimon. And the Sages say: 3 (x3) {handbreads} [fingerbreadths] exact."

Rav Hamnuna said: Here, in regard to less than 3x3 {handbreadths} we are dealing. And Rabbi Eliezer goes according to his reasoning, and Rabbi Akiva according to his reasoning. For we learnt {tnan}: If {material} less than three {handbreadths} square is set aside for stopping a bath, pouring from a pot, or cleaning a mill therewith, whether it is of prepared {material} or not,
[it is unclean: that is Rabbi Eliezer's view; Rabbi Yehoshua maintained: Whether it is of prepared {material} or not,]
it is clean; Rabbi Akiva ruled: If of prepared {material}, it is unclean; if of unprepared, it is clean.

And Ulla said, and some say Rabba bar bar Chana cited Rabbi Yochanan: All admit that if it was thrown away on the refuse heap, it is universally agreed that it is clean.

{Shabbat 29b}
if one placed it in a chest, all agree that it is unclean. They differ only where he hung it on a frame or placed it behind the door.
Rabbi Eliezer holds: Whether he hung it on a frame or placed it behind a door, it is 'prepared' and thus unclean.
And Rabbi Yehoshua holds: Whether he hung it on a frame or placed it behind a door, it is not 'prepared' and it is therefore clean.

And when Rabbi Eliezer said that it was [not] prepared (and {yet} unclean) this is because relatively to {placing it in} a chest it is not prepared. And it is unclean because Rabbi Eliezer holds that since he did not throw it into the refuse heap, whether he hung it on a frame or placed it behind a door, he considers it important, and it is as if he placed it in a chest, and it is {therefore} unclean.

And Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that it is {=can be} 'prepared' and {yet} clean, does not intend 'prepared' as describing the situation of being placed in a chest, for as we said earlier, "if it was placed in a chest, all would agree that it is unclean." If so, how could Rabbi Yehoshua have said "it is 'prepared' and {yet} pure?" Rather this that he said 'prepared' does not mean that it stands {'prepared'} for the chest but rather it stands {'prepared'} for the refuse heap.

(And this is what it means to say: Whether he hung it on a frame or placed it behind a door, since he did not place it in a chest, it is 'prepared' for the refuse heap, and it is clean {pure}, for his mind was not on it, and he did not consider it important at all. And 'preparation' for the refuse heap is not called 'preparation' in terms of ritual impurity.)

And Rabbi Akiva, in the case where he hung it on a frame, holds like Rabbi Eliezer, and that it is 'prepared' in terms of ritual impurity. And where he placed it behind a door, he holds like Rabbi Yehoshua that says that it is pure, and that it is like casting it into the refuse heap, for we say that the 'preparation' for the refuse heap is not the same as 'preparation' in terms of ritual impurity.

And this that Rav Hamnuna said, that here, in less than 3x3 {handbreadths} we are dealing, etc., we find that a few of the {post-Talmudic} Rabbis explain this in a way not to be relied upon, and not like the {final} halacha.

And therefore we needed to record it, and to explain the questions, and to explain the saying {that it, the section of gemara} with an excellent explanation according to halacha.

{Here the Rif cites an explanation:}
And so we find one who establishes Rav Hamnuna's statement as going on less than 3 [fingers] x 3, and says afterwards that the one who sees that Rav Hamnuna brought a proof from 3x3, and establishes the wick mentioned in our Mishna as a wick that has less than 3 [handbreadths] - this is rather forced, for how can {in our Mishna} Rabbi Akiva say that it is pure? For do we not learn a complete Mishna that they said that 3x3 {fingers} which became smaller is pure, but 3x3 {handbreadths} that became smaller, even though it is pure from medras {tum'a from a zav sitting}, it is impure from all {other manners of} impurities. Rather, it is less than 3x3 {fingers}. And once we establish Rav Ada {bar Ahava} as referring to a case of 3x3 {fingers} we will establish Rav Hamnuna with regard to less than 3 {presumably fingers}. And this that is says explicitly regarding 3 {handbreadths} of 'preparing' cloths, it teaches it about less than 3 {handbreadths}, but the same is the law with regard to less than 3 {fingers}.

This is the explanation that we have found, and we ask upon it: Just as it was a question to him if it were 3x3 {fingers} how we learn that Rabbi Akiva said it was pure - say, on the other side, how do we learn that Rabbi Eliezer says that it is impure in a case of less than 3x3 {fingers}, for did we not learn a complete Mishna that they said that 3x3 which became smaller is pure?

And furthermore, how could you say that with the example of less 3x3 {handbreadths} the Mishna taught it, but the same is the law as regards less than 3x3 {fingers}? In which law is less than 3x3 {fingers} akin to less than 3x3 handbreadths? Is not less than 3x3 {handbreadths} impure {or rather susceptible to ritual impurity} from all the ritual impurities except for the impurity of medras, and less than 3x3 {fingers} is pure from all of them? And it is not possible to derive pure from impure. Behold it have been made clear to you that these words have no substance, and are not to be relied upon.

And therefore, we saw fit to explain this saying {the gemara} with an excellent explanation which can be relied upon according to halacha.

The main point of this gemara is that less than 3x3 {handbreadths} until 3x3 fingers does not become impure unless he put it away {concealed it}, and if he did not put it away it does not become impure, for we have learnt in a brayta in the Tosefta as regards 3x3 {and not less} that it is not impure until you put it away for a garment, {and} Rabbi Shimon says: for something the is susceptible to impurity it is impure, for something not susceptible to impurity it is pure. And it is known that less than 3x3 {handbreadths}, and {not less than} 3x3 {fingers}, their law is equivalent. And it is in this putting away that Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva argue.

For we learnt {in a Mishna in Kelim}: Less than 3x3 {handbreadths} that is set aside for stopping a bath, pouring from a pot, or cleaning a mill therewith, Rabbi Eliezer says: whether it is of prepared {material} or not, it is unclean; Rabbi Yehoshua says: Whether it is of prepared {material} or not, it is clean; Rabbi Akiva says: If of prepared {material}, it is unclean; if of unprepared, it is clean.

And Ulla said, and some say Rabba bar bar Chana cited Rabbi Yochanan: All admit that if it was thrown away on the refuse heap, it is universally agreed that it is clean. If one placed it in a chest, all agree that it is unclean. They differ only where he hung it on a frame or placed it behind the door.

By way of explanation:

If he placed it in a chest, he has prepared it and concealed it, and even though he returns and sets it aside for stopping a bath, pouring from a pot, or cleaning a mill therewith, which are acts done with an ordinary rag, which would be something that is not susceptible to ritual impurity, it is not nullified from the status of "garment," and this setting aside {for stirring the pot, etc} does not take it out from its status of "garment" and it is impure {or susceptible to impurity} according to everyone.

And if he threw it to the refuse heap, all would agree that it is pure, for he nullified it, and so whether he set it aside for stirring a pot, or whether he did not so set it aside, it is pure, for it was already nullified {from its previous status of garment} and we do not require setting aside for these purposes {to take it from its status of garment.}

When do they argue? Where he hung it on a frame or placed it behind the door. Rabbi Eliezer holds that it is 'prepared' and therefore impure, for this is like placing it in a chest. And even though he returns and sets it aside for stirring the pot and similar activities, this does not remove it from its status of "garment" with this type of setting aside.
And Rabbi Yehoshua holds that since he did not place it in a chest, it is not 'prepared,' and it therefore pure, even if he did not set it aside for stirring the pot, for it was already nullified. And this that he calls it 'prepared' is because in terms of the refuse heap it is prepared {for it}.
And Rabbi Akiva