Shabbat 46aשבת מ״ו א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 46a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
46aמ״ו א

מותר לנטותה ומותר לפרקה בשבת אלא אמר אביי בשל חוליות אי הכי מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון בן לקיש דשרי

it is permitted to assemble it and it is permitted to dismantle it on Shabbat. If a permanent object like that one may be assembled on Shabbat and there is no concern for the prohibition of building, all the more so it should not be considered building and dismantling in the case of a candelabrum. Rather, Abaye said: Here it is referring to a special candelabrum made of joints, removable parts, and there is concern lest it fall and break into its component parts when it is moved, and one may come to reassemble it, which would be tantamount to crafting a vessel on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: If so, if it is referring to that type of candelabrum, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who permits moving the candelabrum?

מאי חוליות כעין חוליות דאית בה חידקי הלכך חוליות בין גדולה בין קטנה אסורה לטלטלה גדולה נמי דאית בה חידקי גזירה אטו גדולה דחוליות כי פליגי בקטנה דאית בה חידקי מר סבר גזרינן ומר סבר לא גזרינן

The Gemara replies: It is not referring to a candelabrum that can actually be dismantled. Rather, what is the meaning of joints? Similar to joints, i.e., there are grooves in it and it appears as if it is made of different components. Therefore, in summary: With regard to a candelabrum made of actual joints, both one that is large and one that is small, it is prohibited to move it. In addition, a large candelabrum that has grooves, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to move it by rabbinic decree, which was issued due to a large candelabrum made of joints. Because it is common for a large candelabrum to be made of joints, if one saw someone carrying a large, grooved candelabrum, he would mistakenly assume that it had joints due to the similarity between them, and would mistakenly permit carrying a large candelabrum actually composed of joints. Where Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree is in the case of a small candelabrum that has grooves. This Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that we issue a decree prohibiting moving even a small, grooved candelabrum due to a large one. And this Sage, Reish Lakish, holds that we do not issue a decree. Because a small candelabrum is not typically made of joints, everyone realizes that the grooves are strictly decorative.

ומי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והאמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן מוכני שלה בזמן שהיא נשמטת אין חיבור לה ואין נמדדת עמה ואין מצלת עמה באהל המת ואין גוררין אותה בשבת בזמן שיש עליה מעות

The Gemara questions: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan state the following principle: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned in the mishna that discusses ritual impurity of a wagon with a detachable undercarriage: The wagon’s undercarriage, when it is detachable from the wagon, it is not considered connected to it and they are considered independent units as far as the halakhot of ritual impurity are concerned. And it is not measured with it. This refers to calculating the volume of forty se’a, as a vessel with a volume larger than forty se’a does not have the legal status of a vessel and cannot become ritually impure. And the undercarriage likewise does not protect together with the wagon in a tent over the corpse. A large wagon is considered a tent in and of itself, and the vessels inside the wagon do not become impure if the wagon is over a dead body. However, the undercarriage is not included with the wagon in this regard. If a hole in the wagon is sealed by the undercarriage, it is not considered to be sealed with regard to preventing ritual impurity. And, likewise, one may not pull the wagon on Shabbat when there is money upon it.

הא אין עליה מעות שריא ואף על גב דהוו עליה בין השמשות אמר רבי זירא תהא משנתינו שלא היו עליה מעות כל בין השמשות שלא לשבור דבריו של רבי יוחנן

By inference: If there is not money on it, one is permitted to move the wagon even though there was money on it at twilight. An object that was set aside at twilight is set aside for the entire Shabbat. In this mishna, moving the wagon is permitted. Clearly, the unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside. Why, then, did Rabbi Yoḥanan, who always rules in accordance with an unattributed mishna, not rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Zeira said: Let our mishna apply only to a case in which there was no money on the wagon throughout the entire duration of twilight. This strained interpretation is accepted so as not to contradict and reject Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement.

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי פעם אחת הלך רבי לדיוספרא והורה במנורה כרבי שמעון בנר איבעיא להו הורה במנורה כרבי שמעון בנר להיתרא או דילמא הורה במנורה לאיסורא וכרבי שמעון בנר להיתרא תיקו

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One time, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi went to the town of Deyosfera, and issued a ruling with regard to a candelabrum in accordance with the ruling that Rabbi Shimon made with regard to an oil lamp. This description is insufficiently clear, therefore a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that he issued a ruling in the case of a candelabrum, like the ruling that Rabbi Shimon made in the case of an oil lamp, to permit moving it? Or, perhaps, he issued a ruling in the case of a candelabrum to prohibit moving it, and in another case he ruled in accordance with the ruling that Rabbi Shimon made in the case of an oil lamp, to permit moving it. There was no resolution found to this dilemma and therefore it stands unresolved.

רב מלכיא איקלע לבי רבי שמלאי וטילטל שרגא ואיקפד רבי שמלאי רבי יוסי גלילאה איקלע לאתריה דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא טילטל שרגא ואיקפד רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא רבי אבהו כי איקלע לאתריה דרבי יהושע בן לוי הוה מטלטל שרגא כי איקלע לאתריה דרבי יוחנן לא הוה מטלטל שרגא מה נפשך אי כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה ליעבד כרבי יהודה אי כרבי שמעון סבירא ליה ליעבד כרבי שמעון לעולם כרבי שמעון סבירא ליה ומשום כבודו דרבי יוחנן הוא דלא הוה עביד

It is told that Rav Malkiya happened to come to the house of Rabbi Simlai and moved an extinguished oil lamp, and Rabbi Simlai became angry, as in his opinion it is prohibited to move an oil lamp because it is set-aside. Likewise, Rabbi Yosei the Galilean happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and moved an oil lamp, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, became angry. The Gemara also relates that Rabbi Abbahu, when he happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he would move an oil lamp. However, when he happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yoḥanan, he would not move an oil lamp. The Gemara wondered: Whichever way you look at it there is a difficulty. If he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, let him act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda everywhere and refrain from moving the lamp. And if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let him act in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon everywhere and move the oil lamp. The Gemara answers: Actually, it can be explained that Rabbi Abbahu holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; however, in deference to Rabbi Yoḥanan he did not act accordingly, so as not to act contrary to his ruling in the place where he was the authority.

אמר רב יהודה שרגא דמשחא שרי לטלטולה דנפטא אסור לטלטולה רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו דנפטא נמי שרי לטלטולה (דהואיל וחזי לכסות ביה מנא)

With regard to the halakhot of moving lamps on Shabbat, Rav Yehuda said: With regard to an extinguished oil lamp, it is permitted to move it, whereas a naphtha lamp,it is prohibited to move it. Since the smell of naphtha is unpleasant, the lamp is used exclusively for lighting. Therefore, moving it is prohibited. Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: With regard to a naphtha lamp, too, it is permitted to move it.

רב אויא איקלע לבי רבא הוה מאיסן בי כרעיה בטינא אתיבי אפוריא קמיה דרבא איקפד רבא בעא לצעוריה אמר ליה מאי טעמא רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרווייהו שרגא דנפטא נמי שרי לטלטוליה אמר ליה הואיל וחזיא לכסויי בה מנא אלא מעתה כל צרורות שבחצר מטלטלין הואיל וחזיא לכסויי בהו מנא אמר ליה הא איכא תורת כלי עליה הני ליכא תורת כלי עליה מי לא תניא

The Gemara relates: Rav Avya happened to come to Rava’s house. His feet were dirty with clay and he put them on the bed before Rava. Rava became angry at him for dirtying the bed and, therefore, sought to torment him with questions that he could not answer. Rava said to him: What is the reason that Rabba and Rav Yosef both said that with regard to a naphtha lamp, too, that it is permitted to move it? Rav Avya said to him: Since it is suitable to cover a vessel with it. Rava said to him: But if that is so, all pebbles in the yard may also be carried ab initio on Shabbat, since it is suitable to cover a vessel with them. Rav Avya said to him: There is a distinction between these cases. This, the lamp, the status of a vessel applies to it and there are leniencies that apply to vessels with regard to the halakhot of set-aside. These, the pebbles, the status of a vessel does not apply to it, as they are a raw material. Carrying them is prohibited unless designated for a specific purpose before Shabbat. Was it not taught in a baraita that