Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 18, 2020 | 讻状讚 讘谞讬住谉 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Shabbat 43

Today’s shiur is dedicated in memory of Devorah Waiman of London, who was a huge fan and supporter of women’s participation in Jewishe life and would have really enjoyed participating in the daf learning, from her granddaughter Sarah Waiman.聽

The gemara brings two different undertandings (Raba and Rav Yosef) of Rav Chisda’s opinion regarding in which situations one can protect an egg from breaking on Shabbat. The answers reflect two different approaches to the mishna – why is it forbidden for one to place a utensil under the candle in order to catch oil that is dripping. Is it because one cannot move a utensil for the purposes of something that cannot be moved on Shabbat or is it because one cannot render a utensil unable to be used on Shabbat. Abaye raises questions from tannaitic sources against each position and they are all answered. Rabbi Yitzchak brings a different approach to Rav Chisda forbidding all cases of protecting eggs unless one moved the utensil for a permitted purpose initially. The reasoning follows Raba’s position. The gemara raises questions on Rabbi Yitzchak also from tannaitic sources and resolves them. How can one move a dead body to protect it from rotting in the sun?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻讜驻讬谉 拽注专讛 注诇 讛谞专 砖诇讗 讬讗讞讝 讘拽讜专讛 讘讘转讬 讙讞讬谞讬 讚砖讻讬讞 讘讛讜 讚诇讬拽讛

Abaye raised another objection to Rabba鈥檚 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.

讜讻谉 拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 住讜诪讻讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘住驻住诇 讜讘讗专讜讻讜转 讛诪讟讛 讘讻砖讜专讬 讞讚转讬 讚注讘讬讚讬 讚驻拽注讬

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.

谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛讚诇祝 讘砖讘转 讘讘转讬 讞讚转讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讚讚诇驻讬

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.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讘讟诇 讻诇讬 诪讛讬讻谞讜

Rav Yosef said: This is the reasoning of Rav 岣sda, who allowed covering a hen鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讟讘诇 砖谞砖讘专讛 诪讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜诪谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟讘诇 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 砖讘转 砖讗诐 注讘专 讜转拽谞讜 诪转讜拽谉

Abaye raised an objection to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion, just as he had to Rabba鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛谞专 诇拽讘诇 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪诪砖

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.

讜讻谉 拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 住讜诪讻讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘住驻住诇 讗讜 讘讗专讜讻讜转 讛诪讟讛 讚专驻讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛

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.

谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛讚诇祝 讘砖讘转 讘讚诇祝 讛专讗讜讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 preparedness by placing it beneath the leak.

讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 讛住诇 诇驻谞讬 讛讗驻专讜讞讬谉 砖讬注诇讜 讜讬专讚讜 拽住讘专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转拽爪讗讬 诇讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗讬转拽爪讗讬 诇讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗

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鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that even though they are no longer on it, it is prohibited to move the basket? Consequently, the vessel鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 转专谞讙讜诇转 诇拽讘诇 讘讬爪转讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 讻讜驻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转砖讘专 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 谞讬讟诇 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 讛谞讬讟诇 讘砖讘转 诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讜砖谞讬 讘爪专讬讱 诇诪拽讜诪讜

With regard to the basic halakha of a hen that lays an egg on Shabbat, Rabbi Yitz岣k 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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讞转 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗讞转 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讗 诇讻住讜转 讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讜诇住诪讜讱 讘讛 讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛 讗讘诇 讻讜驻讛 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转砖讘专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘爪专讬讱 诇诪拽讜诪讜

To clarify whether or not the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k 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 Yitz岣k鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇讜转 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘讗讘谞讬诐 诪拽讜专讝诇讜转 讚讞讝讬讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇讜转 注诇 讙讘讬 诇讘谞讬诐 讘砖讘转 讚讗讬砖转讬讜专 诪讘谞讬谞讗 讚讞讝讬讬谉 诇诪讬讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇转 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讜讜专转 讚讘讜专讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 诪诪讬砖谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讬谞讞 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛

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,

讚讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讘砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜转谉 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 讜讛讗 诪讜拽爪讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讗住讜专

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 Yitz岣k 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鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗住讜专 讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚

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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 砖诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 讻诪爪讜讚讛 讚诇讬砖讘讜拽 诇讛讜 专讜讜讞讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬转爪讚讜 诪诪讬诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 拽转谞讬 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讞诪讛 (讜讗讬讻讗 爪讬谞讛) 讜讗讬讻讗 讙砖诪讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖

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.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 驻讜拽讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻讘专 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇砖诪注转讬讱 讘讘讘诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讜砖讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 诇诪转 讘砖讘讬诇 讞讬 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 诇诪转 讘砖讘讬诇 诪转

Rav Sheshet said to the Sages: Go out and tell Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻谉 转谞讗 砖讬诇讗 诪专讬 诪转 讛诪讜讟诇 讘讞诪讛 讘讗讬诐 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘爪讚讜 讞诐 诇讛诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 诪讟讛 讜讬讜砖讘 注诇讬讛 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 诪讟讛 讜讬讜砖讘 注诇讬讛 讞诐 诇讛诐 诪诇诪注诇讛 诪讘讬讗讬诐 诪讞爪诇转 讜驻讜专住讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讝讛 讝讜拽祝 诪讟转讜 讜谞砖诪讟 讜讛讜诇讱 诇讜 讜讝讛 讝讜拽祝 诪讟转讜 讜谞砖诪讟 讜讛讜诇讱 诇讜 讜谞诪爪讗转 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖讜讬讛 诪讗诇讬讛

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.

讗讬转诪专 诪转 讛诪讜讟诇 讘讞诪讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜驻讻讜 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讜 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讟诇讟诇讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖专讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪专 住讘专 讟诇讟讜诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇

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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖诪注转讬 砖诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讟诇讟讜诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讟诇讟讜诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟诇讟讜诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚诪转讜讱 砖讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪转讜

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鈥檌m 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鈥檌m. The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone, both tanna鈥檌m, 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,

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Weaving Wisdom

Rabbis, Archaeologist and Linguists

In the Daf Yomi, we see many interesting discussions about ancient vessels and other types of furnishings and tools.聽 An...
daf yomi One week at a time (1)

Shabbat 38-46 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiVHiL6DOBc Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics of the previous week鈥檚 seven pages....
talking talmud_square

Shabbat 43: The Untranslatable Muktzah

Some overview, and some cases from this daf - of these things that are prohibited to carry on Shabbat. Also:...

Shabbat 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 43

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讻讜驻讬谉 拽注专讛 注诇 讛谞专 砖诇讗 讬讗讞讝 讘拽讜专讛 讘讘转讬 讙讞讬谞讬 讚砖讻讬讞 讘讛讜 讚诇讬拽讛

Abaye raised another objection to Rabba鈥檚 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.

讜讻谉 拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 住讜诪讻讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘住驻住诇 讜讘讗专讜讻讜转 讛诪讟讛 讘讻砖讜专讬 讞讚转讬 讚注讘讬讚讬 讚驻拽注讬

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.

谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛讚诇祝 讘砖讘转 讘讘转讬 讞讚转讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讚讚诇驻讬

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.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 诪讘讟诇 讻诇讬 诪讛讬讻谞讜

Rav Yosef said: This is the reasoning of Rav 岣sda, who allowed covering a hen鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讟讘诇 砖谞砖讘专讛 诪讘讬讗 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜诪谞讬讞 转讞转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讟讘诇 诪讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 砖讘转 砖讗诐 注讘专 讜转拽谞讜 诪转讜拽谉

Abaye raised an objection to Rav 岣sda鈥檚 opinion, just as he had to Rabba鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛谞专 诇拽讘诇 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪诪砖

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.

讜讻谉 拽讜专讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 住讜诪讻讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘住驻住诇 讗讜 讘讗专讜讻讜转 讛诪讟讛 讚专驻讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛

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.

谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 讛讚诇祝 讘砖讘转 讘讚诇祝 讛专讗讜讬

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 preparedness by placing it beneath the leak.

讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 讛住诇 诇驻谞讬 讛讗驻专讜讞讬谉 砖讬注诇讜 讜讬专讚讜 拽住讘专 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讜 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讗住讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讘注讜讚谉 注诇讬讜 讻诇 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转拽爪讗讬 诇讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗讬转拽爪讗讬 诇讻讜诇讬 讬讜诪讗

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鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that even though they are no longer on it, it is prohibited to move the basket? Consequently, the vessel鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻砖诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讜转谞讬谉 讻诇讬 转讞转 转专谞讙讜诇转 诇拽讘诇 讘讬爪转讛 讻讱 讗讬谉 讻讜驻讬谉 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转砖讘专 拽住讘专 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 谞讬讟诇 讗诇讗 诇讚讘专 讛谞讬讟诇 讘砖讘转 诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛谞讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讜砖谞讬 讘爪专讬讱 诇诪拽讜诪讜

With regard to the basic halakha of a hen that lays an egg on Shabbat, Rabbi Yitz岣k 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鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗讞转 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘砖讘转 讜讗讞转 讘讬爪讛 砖谞讜诇讚讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讗 诇讻住讜转 讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇讬 讜诇住诪讜讱 讘讛 讻专注讬 讛诪讟讛 讗讘诇 讻讜驻讛 注诇讬讛 讻诇讬 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 转砖讘专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘爪专讬讱 诇诪拽讜诪讜

To clarify whether or not the opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k 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 Yitz岣k鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇讜转 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讘谞讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘讗讘谞讬诐 诪拽讜专讝诇讜转 讚讞讝讬讬谉 诇讘讬转 讛讻住讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇讜转 注诇 讙讘讬 诇讘谞讬诐 讘砖讘转 讚讗讬砖转讬讜专 诪讘谞讬谞讗 讚讞讝讬讬谉 诇诪讬讝讙讗 注诇讬讬讛讜

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讜专住讬谉 诪讞爪诇转 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讜讜专转 讚讘讜专讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 诪诪讬砖谉 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讬谞讞 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛

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,

讚讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讚诇讬讻讗 讚讘砖 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜转谉 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 讜讛讗 诪讜拽爪讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讚讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 讛讗 诇讗 讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 讗住讜专

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 Yitz岣k 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鈥檛 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讗住讜专 讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛谉 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚

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.

诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讬 诇讗 诪转讻讜讬谉 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗住讜专 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讜讚 砖诇讗 讬注砖谞讛 讻诪爪讜讚讛 讚诇讬砖讘讜拽 诇讛讜 专讜讜讞讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬转爪讚讜 诪诪讬诇讗

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鈥檛 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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讘讞诪讛 诪驻谞讬 讛讞诪讛 讜讘讙砖诪讬诐 诪驻谞讬 讛讙砖诪讬诐 拽转谞讬 讘讬讜诪讬 谞讬住谉 讜讘讬讜诪讬 转砖专讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讞诪讛 (讜讗讬讻讗 爪讬谞讛) 讜讗讬讻讗 讙砖诪讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讘砖

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.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 砖砖转 驻讜拽讜 讜讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讻讘专 转专讙诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇砖诪注转讬讱 讘讘讘诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 注讜砖讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 诇诪转 讘砖讘讬诇 讞讬 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讞讬爪讛 诇诪转 讘砖讘讬诇 诪转

Rav Sheshet said to the Sages: Go out and tell Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻谉 转谞讗 砖讬诇讗 诪专讬 诪转 讛诪讜讟诇 讘讞诪讛 讘讗讬诐 砖谞讬 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘爪讚讜 讞诐 诇讛诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 诪讟讛 讜讬讜砖讘 注诇讬讛 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 诪讟讛 讜讬讜砖讘 注诇讬讛 讞诐 诇讛诐 诪诇诪注诇讛 诪讘讬讗讬诐 诪讞爪诇转 讜驻讜专住讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讝讛 讝讜拽祝 诪讟转讜 讜谞砖诪讟 讜讛讜诇讱 诇讜 讜讝讛 讝讜拽祝 诪讟转讜 讜谞砖诪讟 讜讛讜诇讱 诇讜 讜谞诪爪讗转 诪讞讬爪讛 注砖讜讬讛 诪讗诇讬讛

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.

讗讬转诪专 诪转 讛诪讜讟诇 讘讞诪讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讜驻讻讜 诪诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 砖诇诪讬讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗诪专 诪谞讬讞 注诇讬讜 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讟诇讟诇讜 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚砖专讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪专 住讘专 讟诇讟讜诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇

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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 砖诪注转讬 砖诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诪驻谞讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讻专 讗讜 转讬谞讜拽 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讘讟诇讟讜诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讟诇讟讜诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇 诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讟诇讟讜诇 诪谉 讛爪讚 砖诪讬讛 讟诇讟讜诇 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讚诪转讜讱 砖讗讚诐 讘讛讜诇 注诇 诪转讜

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鈥檌m 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鈥檌m. The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone, both tanna鈥檌m, 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,

Scroll To Top