One may chop wood neither from beams set aside for building nor from a beam that broke on a Festival. Apparently, this unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan answered: That mishna is actually in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, which is an individual opinion. Come and hear: One may start a fire on a Festival with a pile of straw but not with wood that is from the wood storage behind one’s house, because that wood is set aside for other uses. Apparently, this is an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara answers: There, the mishna is referring to wood from cedar and fir trees that are set aside due to monetary loss. Even Rabbi Shimon concedes that the prohibition of set-aside is in effect in that case.

Come and hear a proof from another mishna: One may neither give water to nor slaughter non-domesticated desert animals, animals that are always grazing in the fields. Since people do not generally tend to them, they are considered set-aside and may not be used. Giving them water would ease removal of their hides. However, one may give water to and slaughter domesticated animals. This is apparently an unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan found a different unattributed mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Beit Shammai say: One may lift bones and peels and shells, which are set-aside, from the table on Shabbat. And Beit Hillel say: One must remove the entire board from atop the table and shake it; however, he may not lift the set-aside objects. And Rav Naḥman said to reverse the two opinions, and we have only Beit Shammai in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and Beit Hillel in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As the halakha is always ruled in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, this mishna has the authority of an unattributed mishna.

Rav Aḥa and Ravina disputed this matter. One said: In all of the halakhot of Shabbat in which there is a tannaitic dispute involving Rabbi Shimon, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, except for the case of an item set aside due to repulsiveness. And what is that case? It is the case of an old oil lamp, which may not be moved on Shabbat, contrary to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion. And one said: In the case of an item set aside due to repulsiveness, the halakha is also in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon except for the case of set aside due to prohibition. And what is that case? It is the case of moving an oil lamp that one kindled for that very Shabbat. However, with regard to an item set aside due to monetary loss, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it is prohibited to move that item, as we learned in a mishna according to his position: All vessels may be moved on Shabbat except for a large saw and the blade of a plow, both of which are prohibited. Due to their significance, their owners make certain that they will not be damaged.

MISHNA: A father or husband may nullify his daughter’s or his wife’s vows on Shabbat, and one may request from a Sage to dissolve vows that are for the purpose of Shabbat. Failure to dissolve the vow will compromise one’s fulfillment of the mitzva to delight in Shabbat. And one may seal a window on Shabbat to prevent light from entering, and one may measure a rag to determine whether or not it is large enough to contract ritual impurity, and one may measure a ritual bath to determine if it contains enough water for immersion. The mishna relates that there was an incident in the time of Rabbi Tzadok’s father and the time of Abba Shaul ben Botnit, in which they sealed a window using an earthenware vessel and tied an earthenware shard with a long reed-grass with a temporary knot, in order to ascertain whether or not the roofing had an opening the size of a handbreadth. And from their statements and their actions, we derived that one may seal a window, and measure, and tie a knot on Shabbat.

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that it is permitted to nullify vows and to request that Sages dissolve vows for the purpose of Shabbat. In an attempt to understand the mishna, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is nullification of vows on Shabbat permitted both for the purpose of Shabbat and when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat? And the request to dissolve vows, when it is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited? And is it due to that distinction that the tanna of the mishna separated the cases from each other and listed them separately?

Or perhaps with regard to nullification of vows on Shabbat as well, when it is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted, but when they are not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited; and the fact that the tanna of the mishna separated the cases from each other and listed them separately is due to the fact that for nullification one does not require a court, and a husband or father can nullify a woman’s vows on his own, but for the request to dissolve vows one requires a court.

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which the Sage, Zutei, of the school of Rav Pappa taught: One may nullify vows on Shabbat for the purpose of Shabbat. Apparently, when the nullification is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted to nullify vows, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited.

The Gemara cites another version of the dilemma that was raised before the Sages. Was the phrase: When they are for the purpose of Shabbat, taught about both of them, and nullification is only permitted for the purpose of Shabbat, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited? If so, apparently, nullification of vows may be performed for an entire twenty-four hour period after hearing the vow, and the father or husband can wait until after Shabbat to nullify the vow if he does not need to do so for the purpose of Shabbat. Or perhaps when the mishna taught that it is permitted when the nullification is for the purpose of Shabbat, that was taught only with regard to the request to dissolve that which was prohibited by the vow, but nullification of vows may be performed on Shabbat even when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat. If so, apparently nullification of vows may be performed only for the entire day that the husband or father heard the vow. Once Shabbat concludes, the vow may no longer be nullified. Therefore, even vows whose nullification is not for the purpose of Shabbat may be nullified on Shabbat.

Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from that which the Sage, Zutei, of the school of Rav Pappa taught: One may nullify vows on Shabbat for the purpose of Shabbat. Apparently, when the nullification is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, it is permitted to nullify vows, but when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, it is prohibited. If so, apparently nullification of vows may be performed for the entire twenty-four hour period after hearing the vow.

Rav Ashi said: Didn’t we learn in a mishna that one may nullify vows for the entire day, and there is both a leniency and a stricture in this matter to extend or curtail the period during which the vow may be nullified. How so? If the woman vowed on Shabbat evening, her father or husband may nullify the vow on Shabbat evening and on Shabbat day until dark. However, if she vowed before Shabbat at nightfall, her father or husband may only nullify the vow until nightfall, as if he did not nullify the vow before nightfall, he can no longer nullify it because the day ended. The Gemara answers that this issue is subject to a tannaitic dispute, as it was taught in a baraita: One may nullify vows for the entire day. Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: For a twenty-four hour period.

We learned in the mishna: And one may request from a Sage to dissolve vows on Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is this only permitted when one did not have time to request to have the vow dissolved before Shabbat, or perhaps it is permitted even if one had time before Shabbat to request to have his vow dissolved? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the fact that the Sages attended to Rav Zutra, the son of Rav Zeira, and dissolved his vow even though he had time to request its dissolution before Shabbat.

The mishna related: They sealed a window using an earthenware vessel and tied an earthenware shard with a long reed-grass. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said in explanation: There was a small alleyway [heilketei] between two houses, and there was ritual impurity imparted by a corpse there in the alleyway,