Shabbat 142bשבת קמ״ב ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 142b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
142bקמ״ב ב

והא מיפליג פליג עילויה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר מעלין את המדומע באחד ומאה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר נותן עיניו בצד זה ואוכל מצד אחר

Doesn’t he disagree with him? As it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One may lift a measure of teruma that was nullified from a mixture of one hundred measures of non-sacred produce and one measure of teruma. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One casts his eyes on this side of the mixture and decides to separate a se’a from the produce on that side, and he eats from a different side of the mixture.

דרבי יהודה עדיפא מדרבי שמעון בן אלעזר:

The Gemara rejects this: Fundamentally, the two tanna’im agree, but the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda is more far-reaching than the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. Rabbi Yehuda says that since thought is sufficient, lifting the se’a does not render the produce fit for consumption, and it is preferable if he lifts the se’a even on Shabbat.

מתני׳ האבן שעל פי החבית מטה על צדה והיא נופלת היתה בין החביות מגביה ומטה על צדה והיא נופלת

MISHNA: With regard to a stone, which is set-aside on Shabbat and may not be moved, that was placed on the mouth of a barrel, one tilts the barrel on its side, and the stone falls. If the barrel was among other barrels, and the other barrels might break if the stone falls on them, he lifts the barrel to distance it from the other barrels, and then tilts it on its side, and the stone falls.

מעות שעל הכר מנער את הכר והן נופלות היתה עליו לשלשת מקנחה בסמרטוט היתה של עור נותנין עליה מים עד שתכלה:

With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. If there was bird dung (Arukh) on the cushion, he wipes it with a rag, but he may not wash it with water because of the prohibition against laundering. If the cushion was made of leather, and laundering is not a concern, he places water on it until the bird dung ceases.

גמ׳ אמר רב הונא אמר רב לא שנו אלא בשוכח אבל במניח נעשה בסיס לדבר האסור:

GEMARA: Rav Huna said that Rav said: They only taught this halakha with regard to a stone in a case where one forgets the stone on the barrel. However, if he places the stone on the barrel, the barrel becomes a base for a prohibited object, which itself may not be moved throughout Shabbat.

[היתה בין החביות כו׳]: מאן תנא דכל היכא דאיכא איסורא והיתרא בהיתרא טרחינן באיסורא לא טרחינן

We learned in the mishna: If the barrel was among other barrels, he lifts the barrel and then tilts it on its side, and the stone falls. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that any place that there is a prohibited item and a permitted item, we may exert ourselves for the permitted item, but we may not exert ourselves for the prohibited item? One must exert himself to lift the barrel, and he may not remove the stone, although doing so would minimize his exertion.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא דתנן הבורר קטנית ביום טוב בית שמאי אומרים בורר אוכל ואוכל ובית הלל אומרים בורר כדרכו בחיקו ובתמחוי

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to one who selects legumes on a Festival, separating edible and inedible, Beit Shammai say: He selects food and eats it immediately and leaves the waste. And Beit Hillel say: He selects in his usual manner, and may even remove the waste and leave the food, in his lap or in a large vessel.

ותניא אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במה דברים אמורים שהאוכל מרובה על הפסולת אבל פסולת מרובה על האוכל דברי הכל בורר אוכל

And it was taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case are these matters, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, stated: In a case where the quantity of the food is greater than the quantity of the waste. However, if the quantity of the waste is greater than the quantity of the food, everyone agrees that one selects the food to avoid the exertion involved in removing the waste, which itself may not be moved. The same is true here. He moves the barrel and not the stone, which is like waste.

והא הכא דכי אוכל מרובה על הפסולת דמי

The Gemara asks: And here, in the case of the barrel, isn’t it comparable to a case where the food is greater than the waste, as the barrel, which is food, is bigger and heavier than the stone. In addition, it is easier to move the stone. Nevertheless, he is not permitted to do so, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

הכא נמי כיון דאי בעי למישקל לא משתקיל ליה יין עד דשקיל לה לאבן כפסולת מרובה על האוכל דמי:

The Gemara answers: Here, too, since if he wants to take the wine, the wine cannot be taken until he removes the stone, the legal status of the stone is like that of waste which is greater in quantity than the food, and it cannot be likened to the case of selecting. In this case, he is unable to move the barrel without moving the stone.

היתה בין החביות מגביה: תניא רבי יוסי אומר היתה החבית מונחת באוצר או שהיו כלי זכוכית מונחין תחתיה מגביה למקום אחר ומטה על צדה והיא נופלת ונוטל הימנה מה שצריך לו ומחזירה למקומה:

We learned in the mishna: If the barrel was among other barrels, he lifts the barrel. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: If the barrel was placed in a storeroom amongst other barrels, or if glass vessels were placed beneath it, preventing him from tilting the barrel and letting the stone fall, he lifts the barrel and moves it to a different place, and he tilts it on its side, and the stone falls. And then he takes from the barrel what he needs, and restores the barrel to its place.

מעות שעל הכר: אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב לא שנו אלא בשוכח אבל במניח נעשה בסיס לדבר האסור

We learned in the mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall. Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: They only taught this halakha with regard to a case where one forgets the coins on the cushion; however, if he places the coins on the cushion, the cushion becomes a base for a prohibited object and may not be moved at all.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא לצורך גופו אבל לצורך מקומו מטלטלו ועודן עליו וכן תני חייא בר רב מדיפתי לא שנו אלא לצורך גופו אבל לצורך מקומו מטלטלו ועודן עליו:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself; but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it. And likewise, Hiyya bar Rav from Difti taught in a baraita: They only taught the halakha that one shakes the cushion and the coins fall, when he needs the cushion for the purpose of utilizing the cushion itself, but if he needs it for the purpose of utilizing its place, he moves the cushion with the coins still on it.

מעות שעל הכר מנער וכו׳: אמר רבי אושעיא שכח ארנקי בחצר מניח עליה ככר או תינוק ומטלטלה אמר רב יצחק שכח לבינה בחצר מניח עליה ככר או תינוק ומטלטלה אמר רבי יהודה בר שילא אמר רבי אסי פעם אחת שכחו דסקיא מלאה מעות בסרטיא ובאו ושאלו את רבי יוחנן ואמר להן הניחו עליה ככר או תינוק וטלטלוה

We learned in the mishna: With regard to coins that are on a cushion, he shakes the cushion and the coins fall.
Rabbi Oshaya said: If one forgot a purse of money in the courtyard on Shabbat eve, and he remembers it on Shabbat and wants to bring it into the house, he places a loaf of bread or a baby on it and moves it. The purse becomes a base for a permitted object and may be moved.
Rav Yitzhak said: If one forgot a brick in the courtyard, he places a loaf of bread or a baby on it and moves it.
Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said: Once, they forgot a saddlebag [diskaya] full of coins in a main street, and they came and asked Rabbi Yoḥanan, and he said to them: Place a loaf or a baby on it, and move it.

אמר מר זוטרא הלכתא ככל הני שמעתתא בשוכח רב אשי אמר אפילו שכח נמי [לא] ולא אמרו ככר או תינוק אלא למת בלבד

Mar Zutra said: The halakha is in accordance with all these statements in the case of one who forgets. However, if one intentionally left an object, even a valuable object, on Shabbat eve, he may not employ artifice and move it the following day. Rav Ashi said: If one forgot, he may also not employ artifice, and they only stated that movement by means of a loaf or a baby for the purposes of moving a corpse alone.

אביי מנח כפא אכיפי רבא מנח סכינא אבר יונה ומטלטלה אמר רב יוסף כמה חריפא שמעתתא דדרדקי אימר דאמור רבנן בשוכח לכתחילה מי אמור

The Gemara relates: Abaye would place a spoon on bundles of produce, so that he would be able to move the bundles because of the spoon. Rava would place a knife on a slaughtered young dove and move it. Rav Yosef said mockingly: How sharp is the halakha of children? Say that the Sages stated this halakha only in a case where one forgets, but did they say that one may do so ab initio?

אמר אביי אי לאו דאדם חשוב אנא כפא אכיפי למה לי הא חזו למיזגא עלייהו

Abaye explained his actions and said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a spoon on the bundles? Aren’t the bundles themselves suited to lean upon? I could have carried the bundles without the spoon.

אמר רבא אנא אי לאו דאדם חשוב אנא סכינא אבר יונה למה לי הא חזי לי לאומצא

Similarly, Rava said: If not for the fact that I am an important person, why would I need to place a knife on a young dove? Isn’t the young dove itself suited to be eaten as raw meat?

טעמא דחזי לאומצא הא לא חזי לאומצא לא למימרא דרבא כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה

The Gemara asks: The reason that it is permitted to move the slaughtered dove is because it is suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat; but if it is not suited to be eaten by a person as raw meat, no, it may not be moved. Is that to say that Rava holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that on Shabbat it is prohibited to move food that was originally designated for human consumption and is now only suited for animal consumption?

והאמר רבא לשמעיה טווי לי בר אווזא ושדי מיעיה לשונרא

Didn’t Rava say to his attendant on a Festival: Roast a duck for me, and throw its intestines to the cat. Moving the duck’s intestines was permitted in order to feed the cat. Similarly, moving the dove should have been permitted not because it is raw meat fit for consumption by a person, but because it is suited for consumption by a dog.