Shabbat 47aשבת מ״ז א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shabbat 47a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
47aמ״ז א

הנח לנר שמן ופתילה הואיל דנעשה בסיס לדבר האסור

Leave the candle, oil, and wick, since they became a base for a prohibited object. Even Rabbi Shimon agrees that a flame burning on Shabbat is set-aside. Since it is prohibited to move the flame, moving the lamp, oil, and wick is also prohibited.

אמר רבי זירא אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן אמר רבי חנינא אמר רבי רומנוס לי התיר רבי לטלטל מחתה באפרה אמר ליה רבי זירא לרבי אסי מי אמר רבי יוחנן הכי והתנן נוטל אדם בנו והאבן בידו או כלכלה והאבן בתוכה ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן בכלכלה מלאה פירות עסקינן טעמא דאית בה פירי הא לית בה פירי לא

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that Rabbi Ḥanina said that Rabbi Romanus said: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted me to carry a coal pan with its ashes. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say that? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: A person may carry his son in his hands and even if the son has a stone, which is prohibited to carry, in his hands; or, one may carry a basket with a stone inside it? And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: We are dealing with a basket that is full of fruit. Due to the fruit, carrying the stone is also permitted. The reason for the leniency is because there is fruit inside the basket; however, if there is no fruit inside it, no, one may not move it. With regard to the coal pan that is filled with ashes, how can moving it be permitted according to Rabbi Yoḥanan?

אשתומם כשעה חדא ואמר הכא נמי דאית בה קרטין אמר אביי קרטין בי רבי מי חשיבי

“He was astonished for a while” (Daniel 4:16) and could not find an answer. And, ultimately, Rabbi Asi said: Here, too, it is referring to a case where the coal pan has bits of frankincense that were not yet burned. Due to those bits, moving the pan is permitted. Abaye said: Are small bits in the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi significant? Since they are not significant, they are nullified by the ashes and the mixture is entirely unsuitable for use.

וכי תימא חזו לעניים והתניא בגדי עניים לעניים בגדי עשירים לעשירים אבל דעניים לעשירים לא אלא אמר אביי מידי דהוה אגרף של ריעי

And if you say: The bits are suitable for the poor. We will explain that the value of an object is determined not by its context, but by its intrinsic value. Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that there is a difference with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity between garments belonging to poor people, which can become ritually impure even if they are very small, and garments belonging to the wealthy, which are not considered significant unless they contain a larger amount of fabric? Garments the size of poor people’s clothing are for the poor, and garments the size of rich people’s clothing are for the rich; however, clothes of the poor for the rich are not significant. Apparently, the significance of an object is determined by its context and its owner. Rather, Abaye said an alternative explanation: The halakha here is just as it is in the case of a chamber pot of feces. Since it is disgusting, removing it from the house is permitted, even though clearly there is no use for it.

אמר רבא שתי תשובות בדבר חדא גרף של ריעי מאיס והאי לא מאיס ועוד גרף של ריעי מיגלי והאי מיכסי אלא אמר רבא כי הוינן בי רב נחמן הוה מטלטלינן כנונא אגב קיטמא ואף על גב דאיכא עליה שברי עצים מיתיבי ושוין שאם יש בה שברי פתילה שאסור לטלטל אמר אביי בגלילא שנו

Rava said: There are two answers to reject this analogy: One, a chamber pot with feces is disgusting, and the coal pan is not disgusting. And furthermore: A chamber pot with feces is uncovered and smells, and the coal pan is covered. Rather, Rava said an alternative explanation: When we were at the house of Rav Naḥman we would move a coal pan [kanuna]on account of the ashes, and we did this even though there were broken pieces of wood on it. Since the ashes can be used to cover filth, it is not set-aside and the coal pan may be moved due to the ashes. Even if there were also broken sticks on the pan that are useless, nevertheless they are nullified by the ashes. The Gemara raises an objection to this last remark from that which was cited previously: And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that if there were fragments of a wick in the lamp, that it is prohibited to move it. Apparently, these fragments are not null and render the entire lamp set-aside. Abaye said: No proof can be cited from that baraita because they taught it in the Galilee, where oil is abundant and inexpensive. That is why broken wicks are not nullified relative to the oil (Rav Nissim Gaon).

לוי בר שמואל אשכחינהו לרבי אבא ולרב הונא בר חייא דהוו קיימי אפיתחא דבי רב הונא אמר להו מהו להחזיר מטה של טרסיים בשבת אמרו ליה שפיר דמי אתא לקמיה דרב יהודה אמר הא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו המחזיר מטה של טרסיים בשבת חייב חטאת

The Gemara relates that Levi bar Shmuel found Rabbi Abba and Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya, who were standing at the entrance of Rav Huna’s house. Levi bar Shmuel said to them: What is the halakha with regard to reassembling a weaver’s loom, which was typically a collapsible frame, on Shabbat? He said to him: It may well be done. He came before Rav Yehuda, asking him the same question, and Rav Yehuda said to him that Rav and Shmuel both said: One who reassembles a weaver’s loom on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering, as he performed a labor prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat.

מיתיבי המחזיר קנה מנורה בשבת חייב חטאת קנה סיידין לא יחזיר ואם החזיר פטור אבל אסור רבי סימאי אומר קרן עגולה חייב קרן פשוטה פטור אינהו דאמור כי האי תנא דתניא מלבנות המטה וכרעות המטה ולווחים של סקיבס לא יחזיר ואם החזיר פטור

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Levi bar Shmuel from the Tosefta: One who reassembles the branch of a disassembled candelabrum on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. With regard to the plasterer’s pole, which has several component parts, one may not reassemble it ab initio, and if he reassembled it, he is exempt from bringing a sin-offering, although it is prohibited. Rabbi Simai says: With regard to a rounded horn, which is a trumpet that can be dismantled and whose assembly is complicated, one who reassembled it is liable. However, a straight horn, which is easy to assemble, one who assembled it is exempt. Apparently, assembling an object that consists of several components on Shabbat is prohibited by Torah law, and one is liable to bring a sin-offering for doing so. The Gemara answers: They said that it is permitted in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: A bed frame, which is a wooden frame through which the ropes of the bed were interlaced, and the legs of the bed, and the archer’s tablets [skibas], which refers to the part of a bow upon which one pulls the arrow back, if they were detached from the bed or from the bow, one may not reassemble them, and if he reassembled them he is exempt.