Shabbat 43

איתיביה כופין קערה על הנר שלא יאחז בקורה בבתי גחיני דשכיח בהו דליקה

Abaye raised another objection to Rabba’s opinion from a baraita: One may overturn a bowl on the oil lamp so that the flame will not set fire to the beam. Apparently, the Sages permitted moving a vessel, even though this is not a common case of preservation. Rabba answered him: This is a case of low-ceilinged houses in which fires are common.

וכן קורה שנשברה סומכין אותה בספסל ובארוכות המטה בכשורי חדתי דעבידי דפקעי

And it is likewise difficult from a mishna: The beam of a roof that broke, one may support it with a bench and with the lengths of a bed frame so that it will not fall. Even though this is an uncommon case of preservation, it is permitted. Rabba answered: This is a case of new beams, which commonly break. This too is a common case of preservation.

נותנין כלי תחת הדלף בשבת בבתי חדתי דשכיחי דדלפי

And Abaye raised another objection from a mishna: One may place a vessel beneath a leak in the ceiling on Shabbat. Apparently, even an uncommon case of preservation is permitted. Rabba answered: This is a case of new houses, which frequently leak.

רב יוסף אמר היינו טעמא דרב חסדא משום דקא מבטל כלי מהיכנו

Rav Yosef said: This is the reasoning of Rav Ḥisda, who allowed covering a hen’s egg, but not placing a vessel underneath the hen, in order to receive the egg when it is laid: Because by receiving the egg in the vessel, he negates a vessel’s preparedness. Initially, the vessel was available for any use. Since it now contains an egg that may neither be used nor moved, the vessel too may no longer be carried. It is tantamount to breaking the vessel.

איתיביה אביי חבית של טבל שנשברה מביא כלי אחר ומניח תחתיה אמר ליה טבל מוכן הוא אצל שבת שאם עבר ותקנו מתוקן

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Ḥisda’s opinion, just as he had to Rabba’s opinion, from the Tosefta: One whose barrel of untithed produce, which may not be eaten until it is tithed, broke on Shabbat, may bring another vessel and place it beneath the barrel so that the untithed produce is not lost. Even though eating untithed produce is prohibited on Shabbat, they permitted carrying a vessel to preserve it even in the uncommon case of a barrel that breaks. Apparently, one is permitted to negate the vessel’s preparedness. Rav Yosef said to him: This is not difficult. Fundamentally, untithed produce is available for use on Shabbat. As, if one sins and prepares it for use by tithing it on Shabbat, it is prepared and may be eaten and carried.

נותנין כלי תחת הנר לקבל ניצוצות אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ניצוצות אין בהן ממש

Abaye raised another objection from a mishna: One may place a vessel underneath the oil lamp in order to receive the burning sparks of oil that drip from the wick. Once the vessel is filled with the drops of oil, it will no longer be available. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Sparks have no substance. They burn and dissolve as they fall into the bowl and do not accumulate. Therefore, the vessel may still be used.

וכן קורה שנשברה סומכין אותה בספסל או בארוכות המטה דרפי דאי בעי שקיל ליה

And he also raised another objection from a mishna: A beam that broke, one may support it with a bench and with the lengths of a bed frame so that it will not fall. By doing so, he negates the preparedness of the bench or bed frame. He answered: This is a case in which the bench is loosely supporting the beam and not supporting its entire weight. If one wants to do so, he can take the bench. Therefore, the preparedness of the bench is not negated.

נותנין כלי תחת הדלף בשבת בדלף הראוי

And he also raised another objection from a mishna: One may place a vessel beneath a leak that is dripping from the ceiling on Shabbat. The dripping water has no use and is set-aside; therefore, the water negates the vessel’s preparedness. He answered him: This is a case of a leak that is suitable for drinking. Since it has a use, one is permitted to carry the water that is in the vessel. Consequently, he does not negate the vessel’s preparedness by placing it beneath the leak.

כופין את הסל לפני האפרוחין שיעלו וירדו קסבר מותר לטלטלו והתניא אסור לטלטלו בעודן עליו והתניא אף על פי שאין עודן עליו אסור אמר רבי אבהו בעודן עליו כל בין השמשות מיגו דאיתקצאי לבין השמשות איתקצאי לכולי יומא

And he also raised another objection from a Tosefta: One may overturn a basket in front of chicks so that they can climb on and climb off of it. By doing so, he negates the vessel’s preparedness due to the chicks, as moving them is prohibited on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: Rav Yosef holds that it is permitted to move the basket on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that it is prohibited to move the basket? The Gemara replies: This prohibition was stated when they are still on it; however, once the chicks climbed off the basket, it may be carried immediately. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that even though they are no longer on it, it is prohibited to move the basket? Consequently, the vessel’s preparedness is negated. Rabbi Abbahu said: That baraita is referring to the unique case where the chicks remained on top of the basket for the entire twilight period on Shabbat eve. This is in accordance with the principle: Since it was set aside from use during twilight of Shabbat eve, it was set aside for the entire day of Shabbat. The status of every vessel, i.e., whether or not it may be used on Shabbat, is determined at twilight.

אמר רבי יצחק כשם שאין נותנין כלי תחת תרנגולת לקבל ביצתה כך אין כופין עליה כלי בשביל שלא תשבר קסבר אין כלי ניטל אלא לדבר הניטל בשבת מיתיבי כל הני תיובתא ושני בצריך למקומו

With regard to the basic halakha of a hen that lays an egg on Shabbat, Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Just as one may not place a vessel beneath a hen on Shabbat in order to receive its egg, so too, one may not overturn a vessel onto the egg so that it will not break. The Gemara explains that he holds: A vessel may only be carried on Shabbat for the sake of an object that may be carried on Shabbat. Since the egg may not be carried on Shabbat, it is prohibited to carry a vessel for its sake. The Gemara raises all of these objections that were raised to Rav Hisda’s opinion, which permitted doing so. And he answered: All of those halakhot are referring to cases where one needs to move the vessel that he is using for the set-aside item, because he requires its location. This is in accordance with the principle that once it is permitted, for whatever reason, to move any vessel, one may place it anywhere he chooses.

תא שמע אחת ביצה שנולדה בשבת ואחת ביצה שנולדה ביום טוב אין מטלטלין לא לכסות בה את הכלי ולסמוך בה כרעי המטה אבל כופה עליה כלי בשביל שלא תשבר הכא נמי בצריך למקומו

To clarify whether or not the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak is valid, come and hear what was taught in a baraita: With regard to both an egg that was laid on Shabbat and an egg that was laid on a Festival, one may neither move it to cover a vessel with it, nor to support the legs of a bed with it. However, one may cover it with a vessel so that it does not break. This is contrary to Rabbi Yitzḥak’s opinion. Here too, it is referring to a vessel that one seeks to move because he requires its location. Since he was permitted to move it from its place, he is also permitted to cover an egg with it.

תא שמע פורסין מחצלות על גבי אבנים בשבת באבנים מקורזלות דחזיין לבית הכסא

Come and hear an additional proof from that which we learned: One may spread mats on top of stones on Shabbat. Apparently, it is permissible to move a vessel for the sake of something that may not be moved on Shabbat. The Gemara responds: This is a case of rounded rocks that are suitable to be used in the bathroom. Therefore, it is permitted to carry them on Shabbat.

תא שמע פורסין מחצלות על גבי לבנים בשבת דאישתיור מבנינא דחזיין למיזגא עלייהו

Come and hear another proof from that which we learned: One may spread mats on top of bricks on Shabbat. Bricks may not be used on Shabbat. Nevertheless, one is permitted to carry mats for the sake of bricks that are prohibited for use on Shabbat. The Gemara replies: This is referring to a case of bricks that are not set aside for construction, but are left over from a completed building and are suitable for people to lean on them. Consequently, they are like other household vessels, and moving them and moving mats to protect them is permitted.

תא שמע פורסין מחצלת על גבי כוורת דבורים בשבת בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים ובלבד שלא יתכוין לצוד הכא במאי עסקינן דאיכא דבש אמר ליה רב עוקבא ממישן לרב אשי תינח בימות החמה

Come and hear another proof for this from that which we learned: One may spread a mat over a beehive on Shabbat in the sun due to the need to protect it from the sun, and in the rain due to the need to protect it from the rain, as long as he does not intend to trap the bees by covering them. In any event, apparently it is permitted to move a mat for the sake of the beehive even though the beehive itself may not be moved on Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? With a case where there is honey in the beehive. He is permitted to cover it for the sake of the honey. Rav Ukva from Meishan said to Rav Ashi: Granted, you could say this in the summer,

דאיכא דבש בימות הגשמים דליכא דבש מאי איכא למימר לא נצרכא אלא לאותן שתי חלות והא מוקצות נינהו דחשיב עלייהו הא לא חשיב עלייהו מאי אסור

as there is honey in the beehive during the summer. However, during the rainy season in which there is not honey in the beehive, what can be said according to Rabbi Yitzḥak to explain why it is permitted to cover the beehive at that time? The Gemara answers: This halakha is only applicable in order to permit covering the beehive for those two honeycombs that remain in the hive even during the rainy season so that the bees can feed off of them. The Gemara asks: Aren’t these honeycombs set aside for the bees alone? The Gemara responds: This is a case where one thought of them before Shabbat and, in his mind, prepared them to be eaten. The Gemara asks: By inference, if one did not think about them, what would be the ruling? It would be prohibited to cover the beehive.

אי הכי הא דתני ובלבד שלא יתכוין לצוד לפלוג ולתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים כשחישב עליהן אבל לא חישב עליהן אסור הא קמשמע לן אף על פי שחישב עליהן ובלבד שלא יתכוין לצוד

If so, this tanna who taught in that same baraita: As long as he does not intend to trap the bees, let him distinguish and teach with regard to that same halakha itself: In what case are these matters stated, that one is permitted to cover the hive? It is in a case where he thought of them before Shabbat. However, if he did not think of them, it is prohibited. The Gemara answers: This teaches us a novel understanding. Even though he thought of them before Shabbat, it is only permitted as long as he did not intend to trap them.

מני אי רבי שמעון לית ליה מוקצה אי רבי יהודה כי לא מתכוין מאי הוי הא דבר שאין מתכוין אסור לעולם רבי יהודה מאי ובלבד שלא יתכוין לצוד שלא יעשנה כמצודה דלישבוק להו רווחא כי היכי דלא ליתצדו ממילא

With regard to the matter itself, the Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, he does not hold that there is a prohibition of set-aside. Consequently, there is no distinction between the different beehives. If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, when he does not have intention to trap the bees, what of it? Doesn’t Rabbi Yehuda hold that even an unintentional act is prohibited? The Gemara replies: Actually, this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. What does: And as long as one does not intend to trap the bees, mean? It means that one should not make the mat like a trap. He must leave space so that the bees will not get trapped on their own.

רב אשי אמר מי קתני בימות החמה ובימות הגשמים בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים קתני ביומי ניסן וביומי תשרי דאיכא חמה (ואיכא צינה) ואיכא גשמים ואיכא דבש

Rav Ashi said that it can be resolved differently: Did the baraita teach: In the summer and in the rainy season? Actually, it taught: In the sun due to the sun and in the rain due to the rain. That can be interpreted as follows: In the days of Nisan and in the days of Tishrei, as then there is sun shining and there is also cold weather; and there is rain and there is honey in the beehives.

אמר להו רב ששת פוקו ואמרו ליה לרבי יצחק כבר תרגמא רב הונא לשמעתיך בבבל דאמר רב הונא עושין מחיצה למת בשביל חי ואין עושין מחיצה למת בשביל מת

Rav Sheshet said to the Sages: Go out and tell Rabbi Yitzḥak in Eretz Yisrael: Rav Huna already explained your halakha in Babylonia. There is nothing novel in the principle that you established that a vessel may only be moved for the sake of something that may be moved, as Rav Huna said: One may make a partition for the dead for the benefit of a living person, and one may not make a partition for the dead for the benefit of the dead person. It is prohibited to move objects for the sake of a corpse because it is prohibited to move the corpse itself on Shabbat.

מאי היא דאמר רב שמואל בר יהודה וכן תנא שילא מרי מת המוטל בחמה באים שני בני אדם ויושבין בצדו חם להם מלמטה זה מביא מטה ויושב עליה וזה מביא מטה ויושב עליה חם להם מלמעלה מביאים מחצלת ופורסין עליהן זה זוקף מטתו ונשמט והולך לו וזה זוקף מטתו ונשמט והולך לו ונמצאת מחיצה עשויה מאליה

The Gemara asks: What is the practical application of this halakha? As Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said, and likewise the Sage, Sheila Mari taught in a baraita: A corpse that is laid out in the sun and there is concern that it will putrefy and smell, what can be done? Two people come and sit beside it. After a while, when they feel hot from beneath them, this one brings a bed and sits on it and that one brings a bed and sits on it on either side of the corpse, as they are permitted to carry the beds for their own use. When they feel hot from above them, they bring a mat and spread it over their heads. Then, this one stands his bed up so the mat will remain resting atop it and slips away and leaves, and that one stands his bed up and slips away and leaves, and a partition is then created over the corpse as if on its own without erecting it directly for the sake of the corpse. Apparently, the Sages did not permit carrying a mat to cover a corpse for the sake of the corpse. They only permitted doing so in an indirect manner for the benefit of the living.

איתמר מת המוטל בחמה רב יהודה אמר שמואל הופכו ממטה למטה רב חנינא בר שלמיא משמיה דרב אמר מניח עליו ככר או תינוק ומטלטלו היכא דאיכא ככר או תינוק כולי עלמא לא פליגי דשרי כי פליגי דלית ליה מר סבר טלטול מן הצד שמיה טלטול ומר סבר לא שמיה טלטול

Incidental to the mention of halakhot related to a corpse on Shabbat, the Gemara cites an amoraic dispute in which it was stated: A corpse that was laid out in the sun, Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One turns it over from bed to bed until it reaches the shade. Rav Hanina bar Shelamiyya said in the name of Rav: One places a loaf of bread or an infant on the corpse and moves it. The corpse becomes a base for an object that one is permitted to move on Shabbat and, consequently, one may move the corpse due to the permitted object. The Gemara adds: In a case where there is a loaf or an infant, everyone agrees that it is permitted to use that method to move the corpse. Where they argue is in a case where he does not have a loaf or an infant. One Sage, Rav, holds: Moving an object in an atypical manner is considered a bona fide act of moving. Therefore, one may not move the corpse by passing it from bed to bed. And the other Sage, Shmuel, holds that moving an object in an atypical manner is not considered moving. Therefore, it is permitted to move a corpse by passing it from bed to bed.

לימא כתנאי אין מצילין את המת מפני הדליקה אמר רבי יהודה בן לקיש שמעתי שמצילין את המת מפני הדליקה היכי דמי אי דאיכא ככר או תינוק מאי טעמא דתנא קמא אי דליכא מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה בן לקיש אלא לאו בטלטול מן הצד פליגי דמר סבר טלטול מן הצד שמיה טלטול ומר סבר לא שמיה טלטול לא דכולי עלמא טלטול מן הצד שמיה טלטול והיינו טעמא דרבי יהודה בן לקיש דמתוך שאדם בהול על מתו

With regard to this dispute between Rav and Shmuel, the Gemara remarks: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im in the Tosefta. The Rabbis said: One may not rescue a corpse from a fire on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: I heard that one may rescue a corpse from a fire. The Gemara seeks to clarify the matter: What are the circumstances? If there is a loaf or an infant available, what is the rationale for the opinion of the first tanna, who prohibited rescuing the corpse from the fire? If there is not a loaf or an infant, what is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish who permits rescuing the corpse from the fire? Rather, is it not that they disagree over moving an object in an atypical manner? As this Sage, the first tanna, holds that moving an object in an atypical manner is considered moving. Therefore, it is prohibited to rescue the corpse in that manner. And this Sage, Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish, holds that moving an object in an atypical manner is not considered moving. Therefore, it is permitted to rescue the corpse in this manner. The amoraic dispute deals with an issue already disputed by the tanna’im. The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone, both tanna’im, agrees that moving an object in an atypical manner is considered moving. Rather, this is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish: Since a person is agitated about his deceased relative and is concerned about maintaining the dignity of the dead,