If one threw the clay seal of a jug into the garbage dump while it is still day, before Shabbat, it is prohibited to move it on Shabbat because he indicated that he set it aside from use.

Bar Hamduri said that Shmuel said: With regard to shreds of reeds that separated from a mat, it is permitted to move them on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rava said: Bar Hamduri explained it to me: The mat itself, for what use is it suited? It is suited to cover dirt with it. These shreds, too, are suited to cover filth with them.

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav said: With regard to the remains of cloaks [perozemiyyot], it is prohibited to move them on Shabbat. Abaye said: This is referring to small rags that do not have an area of three by three fingerbreadths, that are neither suited for use by the poor nor by the wealthy.

The Sages taught in the Tosefta: The shards of an old oven may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat like all of the vessels that may be moved in a courtyard on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: They may not be moved. Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree? Abaye said: It is with regard to shards when they serve some function but do not serve a function similar to their own original function that they disagree. And Rabbi Yehuda follows his own line of reasoning, and Rabbi Meir follows his own line of reasoning, as they differed in the mishna.

Rava strongly objects to this: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to ordinary shards. Why is the dispute specifically with regard to an oven?

Rather, Rava said: It is with regard to shards of this particular oven that they disagree, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to a clay oven that is not attached to the ground with mortar in the standard manner, but rather, one placed it over the mouth of a pit or over the mouth of a cistern, and he placed a stone there between the wall of the pit and the oven to secure the oven in place, Rabbi Yehuda says: If one heats the oven from beneath the oven, inside the pit, and the oven is thereby heated at the top, the oven serves its standard function; it is a full-fledged utensil and it can become ritually impure. And if it is not attached so tightly that it is heated at the top, it is ritually pure, because it is not a full-fledged vessel. And the Rabbis say: Since it can be heated in some manner, it can become ritually impure, because it serves its standard purpose.

And with regard to what do they disagree? It is with regard to this verse: “And everything upon which any part of their carcass falls shall be impure; whether oven, or stove, it shall be broken in pieces; they are impure, and they shall be impure to you” (Leviticus 11:35). Rabbi Yehuda holds: An oven that lacks smashing, i.e., it is whole and can be broken, can become impure. One that does not lack smashing, but it is situated in a place where it is not completely effective, is considered broken and is pure, i.e., it cannot become ritually impure. And the Rabbis hold that the verse comes to add: “They shall be impure to you,” in any case, under any circumstances.

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, too, isn’t it written: “They shall be broken into pieces,” and why don’t they interpret the verse in the same way that Rabbi Yehuda does? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis understand this verse from another direction, as it could have entered your mind to say: Since he attached it to the ground, its legal status is like that of the ground itself, and anything attached to the ground cannot become impure. Therefore, it teaches us that since it is possible to detach it from the ground, it is indeed impure.

The Gemara asks: And according to the other tanna, Rabbi Yehuda, too, isn’t it written: “They shall be impure to you”? The Gemara answers: He understood that verse in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis is specifically with regard to the first lighting. The first lighting transforms an earthenware oven that did not yet completely dry into a vessel. However, with regard to the second lighting they do not disagree, even if it was hanging around a camel’s neck; since it had already been fired up once, it is impure.

Ulla says: And with regard to the first lighting according to the Rabbis, even if it was hanging around a camel’s neck, since it had already been fired up once it is a full-fledged oven and is impure.

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this line of reasoning: If so, instead of disagreeing with regard to the shards of an oven, let them disagree with regard to the oven itself. Now the oven itself, according to Rabbi Yehuda, is not considered a vessel; therefore, to say that its broken pieces are not vessels, is it necessary?

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Actually, it is as we said initially, that it is referring to shards of any oven, and with which he crafts a ceramic board [tapka], and Rabbi Meir is speaking in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: According to my opinion, it is permitted to move even shards that serve any purpose. However, according to your opinion, agree with me at least that in a case of this sort, it is a function similar to their own original function. The shards can be used for baking.

And Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not similar. There, in the case of an intact oven, its firing is from within. Here, with regard to the shard, its firing is from without. There, in the case of an intact oven, it bakes standing; here, it does not bake standing. Therefore, its function is not similar to its original function.

In that same Tosefta where Rabbi Yosei testified in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov about shards of an old oven that may be moved on Shabbat, and about its cover, which does not require a handle, and which is considered a vessel and may be moved as is, Ravina says: In accordance with whose opinion do we now move the oven covers in the city of Meḥasya that do not have handles? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.

MISHNA: A stone that is in a gourd used to draw water [kiruya], if they fill it with water and the stone does not fall, one may fill with it on Shabbat, and if not, and the stone does fall, one may not fill with it.