Shabbat 45b:2שבת מ״ה ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
45bמ״ה ב

פצעילי תמרה לרבי שמעון מהו א"ל אין מוקצה לר"ש אלא גרוגרות וצימוקין בלבד

Unripe dates that are placed in baskets to ripen and until they are ripe can only be eaten with difficulty, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, what is their legal status as far as moving them on Shabbat is concerned? Are they considered set-aside? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: There is only a prohibition of set-aside according to Rabbi Shimon in the cases of dried figs and raisins alone.

ורבי לית ליה מוקצה והתנן אין משקין ושוחטין את המדבריות אבל משקין ושוחטין את הבייתות ותניא אלו הן מדבריות כל שיוצאות בפסח ונכנסות ברביעה בייתות כל שיוצאות ורועות חוץ לתחום ובאות ולנות בתוך התחום ר' אומר אלו ואלו בייתות הן ואלו הן מדבריות כל שרועות באפר ואין נכנסות לישוב לא בימות החמה ולא בימות הגשמים

The Gemara challenges this: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not hold that there is a prohibition of set-aside? Didn’t we learn in a mishna that on a Festival, before they are slaughtered, one may neither give water to, in order to ease removal of their hides, 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. However, one may give water to and slaughter domesticated animals. And it was taught in a baraita that these are non-domesticated, desert animals: Any animals that leave their sheds on Passover and only enter their sheds with the advent of the rainy season. Domesticated animals are any animals that go out to graze beyond the city limits, and come and sleep within the city limits. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: These and those are both domesticated. And these are the non-domesticated, desert animals that are prohibited due to the prohibition of set-aside: Any animals that graze in the grazing area and neither enter the town during the summer nor during the rainy season. It is these animals that it is prohibited to give water to or slaughter on a Festival. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside even in the case of animals.

איבעית אימא הני נמי כגרוגרות וצימוקין דמיין ואי בעית אימא לדבריו דר"ש קאמר ליה וליה לא סבירא ליה

Several resolutions are proposed to this contradiction: If you wish, say that these non-domesticated animals that graze in the grazing areas throughout the year are also considered like dried figs and raisins. Even Rabbi Shimon would agree to this halakha. And if you wish, say instead: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son that answer, he was saying it to him in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and he himself does not hold that way.

ואיבעית אימא לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי לית לי מוקצה כלל לדידכו אודו לי מיהת דהיכא דיוצאות בפסח ונכנסות ברביעה דבייתות נינהו ורבנן אמרו ליה לא מדבריות נינהו

And if you wish, say instead: In that baraita, he spoke to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, and this is how his statement must be understood: In my opinion I do not hold that there is a prohibition of set-aside at all. However, according to your opinion, at least agree with me that animals that leave their sheds on Passover and only enter their sheds with the advent of the rainy season are domesticated. And the Rabbis said to him: No, those are non-domesticated animals.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן אמרו הלכה כרבי שמעון ומי א"ר יוחנן הכי והא בעא מיניה ההוא סבא קרויא ואמרי לה סרויא מר' יוחנן קינה של תרנגולת מהו לטלטולי בשבת אמר ליה כלום עשוי אלא לתרנגולין הכא במאי עסקינן דאית ביה אפרוח מת

As to the essential dispute with regard to the laws of set-aside, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this? Didn’t an Elder from Keruya, and some say that he was from Seruya, raise a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to a hen’s roost, what is its legal status as far as moving it on Shabbat is concerned? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Isn’t the roost made exclusively for hens to be inside it? Since it is not designated for use by people, moving it is prohibited. Apparently, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to set-aside. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a special case, when there is a dead chick in the roost. Moving the roost is prohibited due to the dead chick, which is set-aside.

הניחא למר בר אמימר משמיה (דרב) דאמר מודה היה ר' שמעון בבעלי חיים שמתו שאסורין אלא למר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא דאמר חלוק היה רבי שמעון [אפי'] בבעלי חיים שמתו שהן מותרין מאי איכא למימר הכא במאי עסקינן בדאית ביה ביצה

The Gemara continues to ask: This works out well according to the opinion of Mar bar Ameimar in the name of Rav, who said: Rabbi Shimon agreed in the case of animals that died on Shabbat, that they are prohibited on Shabbat due to set-aside. However, according to the opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said: Rabbi Shimon was in disagreement even in the case of animals that died, and said that they are permitted and are not prohibited as set-aside, what can be said? The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? With a case where there is an egg that was laid on Shabbat in the roost. Because it was laid on Shabbat it is considered set-aside, and using the egg is prohibited. The thought of using it never entered anyone’s mind before Shabbat.

והאמר רב נחמן מאן דאית ליה מוקצה אית ליה נולד דלית ליה מוקצה לית ליה נולד דאית ביה ביצת אפרוח

The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rav Naḥman say: One who is of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside, is also of the opinion that there is a prohibition of an object that came into being on Shabbat or on a Festival; and one who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside, is also not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of an object that came into being. This case is no different than other cases of set-aside. The Gemara responds: This is referring to a case where the roost has an egg with a chick in it. Even Rabbi Shimon would agree that moving an egg of that sort is prohibited since it is fit for neither human nor animal consumption.

כי אתא רב יצחק בר' יוסף א"ר יוחנן הלכה כר' יהודה ור' יהושע בן לוי אמר הלכה כרבי שמעון אמר רב יוסף היינו דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן אמרו הלכה כרבי שמעון אמרו וליה לא סבירא ליה

This explanation was cited to explain that Rabbi Yoḥanan could hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, when Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rabbi Yosef, came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that there is a prohibition of set-aside. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that there is no prohibition of set-aside. Rav Yosef said: That is what Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The inference is: They said; however, he himself does not hold that this is the halakha.

א"ל אביי לרב יוסף ואת לא תסברא דר' יוחנן כר' יהודה הא ר' אבא ורבי אסי איקלעו לבי ר' אבא דמן חיפא ונפל מנרתא על גלימיה דר' אסי ולא טילטלה מאי טעמא לאו משום דרבי אסי תלמידיה דר' יוחנן הוה ור' יוחנן כרבי יהודה ס"ל דאית ליה מוקצה

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you yourself did not hold that Rabbi Yoḥanan rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even before Rav Yitzḥak came and cited this statement in his name? Didn’t Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Asi happen to come to the house of Rabbi Abba who was from the city Haifa, and a candelabrum fell onto Rabbi Asi’s cloak and he did not move it? What is the reason that he did not lift it? Is it not because Rabbi Asi was a student of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside? Apparently, Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

א"ל מנרתא קאמרת מנרתא שאני דא"ר אחא בר חנינא א"ר אסי הורה ריש לקיש בצידן מנורה הניטלת בידו אחת מותר לטלטלה בשתי ידיו אסור לטלטלה ור' יוחנן אמר אנו אין לנו אלא בנר כרבי שמעון אבל מנורה בין ניטלה בידו אחת בין ניטלה בשתי ידיו אסור לטלטלה

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Candelabrum you say; are you citing a proof from the case of a candelabrum? A candelabrum is different because there is a unique halakha in that case. As Rabbi Aḥa bar Rabbi Ḥanina said that Rabbi Asi said that Reish Lakish issued a ruling in the city of Sidon: A candelabrum that can be moved in one of his hands, one is permitted to move it on Shabbat. However, if it is so heavy that one must move it with his two hands, it is prohibited to move it. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: We have permission to carry only in the case of an oil lamp, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, with regard to a candelabrum, both one that is carried in one hand and one that is carried in two hands, it is prohibited to move it.

וטעמא מאי רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרווייהו הואיל ואדם קובע לה מקום אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף והרי כילת חתנים דאדם קובע לו מקום ואמר שמואל משום רבי חייא כילת חתנים

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that there is a unique prohibition in the case of a candelabrum? Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: Since a person usually designates a fixed place for it due to its size and its use, it is considered a built-in part of the house, and moving the candelabrum is like dismantling the house. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: A groom’s canopy is an object for which a person designates a set place, and, nevertheless, Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: With regard to a groom’s canopy,