MALCHUT: YESHIVAT HAVERIM יְשִׁיבָה חברים – BABYLONIAN TALMUD p84

would a man sacrifice a valuable lot of wool-flock?” (When placing victuals in straw no
intention to make further use of the straw exists, and it becomes part of the pot itself; with woolflocks
the case is different, for they are intended for further use and therefore must not be
handled on Sabbath.)
R. Hisda permitted the replacing of waste (fallen out) of a pillow on Sabbath.
R. Hanan b. Hisda objected to him from the following: “Untying the opening (for the neck) of a
shirt is permitted on Sabbath, but cutting it is prohibited, and waste must not be placed into a
pillow or bolster on a biblical feast day, much less on a Sabbath.”
This presents no difficulty. Placing new waste in a pillowcase is not allowed, but replacing old
waste is allowed. And so also we have learned plainly in a Boraitha, that when they fall out they
may be replaced even on Sabbath, and much the more on a feast day.
R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh said: “Whosoever makes an opening (for the neck in an
unfinished shirt) on Sabbath is liable to a sin-offering.”
R. Kahana opposed, saying: What is the difference between an opening for the neck and a
bunghead (in a barrel)? Rabha answered: A bunghead is not attached to the barrel (i.e., it forms
no part of it), but an opening for the neck is made by an incision in the shirt, and hence is part
and parcel of same. In Sura the following doctrine was taught in the name of R. Hisda, and in
Pumbeditha the same was taught in the name of R. Kahana or Rabha: “Who was the Tana in
whose name the sages taught that the part and parcel of a thing is on a par with the thing itself?”
Said R. Jehudah in the name of Rabh: “It is R. Meir (of the Mishna, Kelim, VIII.) who holds that
the attachment built on a hearth is on a par with the hearth itself and becomes unclean when
touched by an unclean thing.”
“When wet.” A question was propounded: Naturally or artificially wet? Come and hear. The
Mishna says: “Not with straw, nor with grape-skins, nor with wool-flocks, nor with grass when
wet.” It is right only if we accept the theory that they became wet, but should we venture to
think them naturally wet, how is this to be imagined? Can wool-flocks be naturally wet? The
sweaty wool under the hips may be meant. Did not R. Oshia teach we may deposit in dry cloth
and dry fruit, but not in wet cloth or wet fruit? How is naturally wet cloth to be imagined? This may also mean cloth made from the sweaty wool under the hips of
the sheep.