פַּצְעִילֵי תְמָרָה, לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַהוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין מוּקְצֶה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא גְּרוֹגְרוֹת וְצִימּוּקִין בִּלְבַד.
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.
וְרַבִּי לֵית לֵיהּ מוּקְצֶה? וְהָתְנַן אֵין מַשְׁקִין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַמִּדְבָּרִיּוֹת, אֲבָל מַשְׁקִין וְשׁוֹחֲטִין אֶת הַבַּיָּיתוֹת. וְתַנְיָא: אֵלּוּ הֵן מִדְבָּרִיּוֹת? — כׇּל שֶׁיּוֹצְאוֹת בַּפֶּסַח וְנִכְנָסוֹת בָּרְבִיעָה. בַּיָּיתוֹת — כׇּל שֶׁיּוֹצְאוֹת וְרוֹעוֹת חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, וּבָאוֹת וְלָנוֹת בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ בַּיָּיתוֹת הֵן. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מִדְבָּרִיּוֹת: כׇּל שֶׁרוֹעוֹת בָּאֲפָר, וְאֵין נִכְנָסוֹת לַיִּשּׁוּב לֹא בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה וְלֹא בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים.
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.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָנֵי נָמֵי כִּגְרוֹגְרוֹת וְצִימּוּקִין דָּמְיָין. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן קָאָמַר לֵיהּ, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
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.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי לֵית לִי מוּקְצֶה כְּלָל, לְדִידְכוּ אוֹדוּ לִי מִיהַת דְּהֵיכָא דְּיוֹצְאוֹת בַּפֶּסַח וְנִכְנָסוֹת בָּרְבִיעָה דְּבַיָּיתוֹת נִינְהוּ. וְרַבָּנַן? — אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: לָא, מִדְבָּרִיּוֹת נִינְהוּ.
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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָמְרוּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא קָרוֹיָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ, סָרוֹיָא מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קִינָּהּ שֶׁל תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת מַהוּ לְטַלְטוֹלֵי בְּשַׁבָּת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּלוּם עָשׂוּי אֶלָּא לְתַרְנְגוֹלִין! הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן — דְּאִית בֵּיהּ אֶפְרוֹחַ מֵת.
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.
הָנִיחָא לְמָר בַּר אַמֵּימָר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ (דְּרַב) [דְּרָבָא] דְּאָמַר: מוֹדֶה הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים שֶׁמֵּתוּ שֶׁאֲסוּרִין. אֶלָּא לְמָר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא דְּאָמַר: חָלוּק הָיָה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן [אֲפִילּוּ] בְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים שֶׁמֵּתוּ שֶׁהֵן מוּתָּרִין, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בִּדְאִית בֵּיהּ בֵּיצָה.
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.
וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ מוּקְצֶה — אִית לֵיהּ נוֹלָד, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ מוּקְצֶה — לֵית לֵיהּ נוֹלָד! דְּאִית בֵּיהּ בֵּיצַת אֶפְרוֹחַ.
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.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב יִצְחָק בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָמְרוּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אָמְרוּ, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.
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.
אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: וְאַתְּ לָא תִּסְבְּרַהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא רַבִּי אַבָּא וְרַבִּי אַסִּי אִיקְּלַעוּ לְבֵי רַבִּי אַבָּא דְּמִן חֵיפָא, וּנְפַל מְנָרְתָּא עַל גְּלִימֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי וְלָא טַלְטְלַהּ. מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי תַּלְמִידֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֲוָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאִית לֵיהּ מוּקְצֶה!
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְנָרְתָּא קָאָמְרַתְּ? מְנָרְתָּא שָׁאנֵי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: הוֹרָה רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּצַיְדָּן: מְנוֹרָה הַנִּיטֶּלֶת בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת — מוּתָּר לְטַלְטְלָהּ, בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו — אָסוּר לְטַלְטְלָהּ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא בְּנֵר כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. אֲבָל מְנוֹרָה, בֵּין נִיטֶּלֶת בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת בֵּין נִיטֶּלֶת בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו — אָסוּר לְטַלְטְלָהּ.
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.
וְטַעְמָא מַאי? רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: הוֹאִיל וְאָדָם קוֹבֵעַ לָהּ מָקוֹם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: וַהֲרֵי כִּילַּת חֲתָנִים דְּאָדָם קוֹבֵעַ לוֹ מָקוֹם, וְאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי חִיָּיא: כִּילַּת חֲתָנִים
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,