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

January 18, 2022 | 讟状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖驻状讘 | TODAY'S DAF: Moed Katan 6

Today's Daf Yomi

April 19, 2020 | 讻状讛 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.

Shabbat 44

The mishna and gemara delve into the different types of muktze and different tannaitic opinions about what is considered muktze and what isn’t. According to Rabbi Yehuda, something that is disgusting like an earthenware vessel that was used for lighting a candle. According to Rabbi Meir, if something is designated not for use at twilight Friday afternoon (bein hashmashot), then it can’t be used all Shabbat, like candles lit for Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon only forbids moving candles that are lit, lest one may extinguish them. Accroding to the gemara Rabbi Shimon also forbids it while it is lit because he holds that while it is designated for a forbidden use, it is muktze however not for all of Shabbat – just for the time it was designated. How is a metal candelabra different from eathenware? Rav brings a halacha regarding a bed with money on it. A mishna is brought to contradict and the gemara resolves it by saying the mishna holds by Rabbi Shimon and Rav holds by Rabbi Yehuda on muktze issues.

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讻讘讜讬讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讘诪转:

if you do not permit him to move the corpse in an atypical manner, he will come to extinguish the fire. The Sages permitted performing an act prohibited by rabbinic law so that one will not come to transgress a Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yehuda ben Sheila said that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish with regard to the issue of rescuing a corpse from a fire.

讗讬谉 谞讬讗讜转讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜转专 讛砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讜砖讘拽注专讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专:

We learned in the mishna that one may not make use of the oil that drips from the candle on Shabbat because it is not among the oil prepared from Shabbat eve for use on Shabbat. With regard to this same issue, the Sages taught in a baraita: The remaining oil that is in the lamp or in a bowl in which a wick was burning is prohibited for use on Shabbat. However, Rabbi Shimon permits using the remaining oil as, according to his opinion, there is virtually nothing prohibited due to the prohibition of set-aside.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 谞专 讞讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬砖谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞专讜转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞专 讛讚讜诇拽 讘砖讘转:

MISHNA: The dispute in this mishna seems to be a local one; however, it is the key to several halakhot in the area of the prohibition of set-aside [muktze]. One may move a new oil lamp on Shabbat but not an old one that was already used. A lamp that was used is covered with soot and unsuitable for use. It is therefore considered set aside from use due to its disgusting nature. Rabbi Shimon says: All oil lamps may be moved on Shabbat except for an oil lamp that is burning on Shabbat, due to the concern that it might be extinguished.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 谞专 讞讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬砖谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞专讜转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞专 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 讘讜 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞专 讛讚讜诇拽 讘砖讘转 讻讘转讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讗讘诇 讻讜住 讜拽注专讛 讜注砖砖讬转 诇讗 讬讝讬讝诐 诪诪拽讜诪诐 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪住转驻拽 诪谉 讛谞专 讛讻讘讛 讜诪谉 讛砖诪谉 讛诪讟驻讟祝 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注讛 砖讛谞专 讚讜诇拽

GEMARA: The Sages taught the dispute in the mishna in greater detail in a Tosefta: One may move a new oil lamp on Shabbat but not an old one; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: All oil lamps may be moved on Shabbat except for an oil lamp that they kindled on that Shabbat. Rabbi Meir does not hold that one must distance himself from objects that are disgusting. However, since the lamp was burning on Shabbat, it may not be moved, as it is an object set aside due to prohibition for the entire Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon says: All lamps may be moved except for an oil lamp that is burning on Shabbat. If the flame was extinguished, one is permitted to move it. However, a cup and a bowl and a lantern that are full of oil with a wick lit in them, one may not move them from their place even after the flame is extinguished. And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One may supply himself with oil from an extinguished candle and from the oil that drips from the lamp, and even while the lamp is burning.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讘讞讚讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讚讗讬诇讜 讗讘讜讛 住讘专 讻讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讻讘讛 诇讗 讜讗讬讛讜 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讻讘讛

Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father in one matter and disagrees with him in one matter. He holds in accordance with the opinion of his father in one matter, as he is not of the opinion that moving set-aside objects is prohibited. And he disagrees with him in one matter; as his father holds that if the flame was extinguished, yes, he may move it, if it was not extinguished, no, he may not move it. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Even though the flame was not extinguished, it is permitted to carry the lamp and to use the oil that drips from it. In his opinion, doing so in no way extinguishes the flame and it is in no way comparable to extinguishing the flame.

讗讘诇 讻讜住 讜拽注专讛 讜注砖砖讬转 诇讗 讬讝讬讝诐 诪诪拽讜诪诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Following Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement, it was taught in the Tosefta: However, a cup, and a bowl, and a lantern, one may not move them from their place. The Gemara asks: What is different about these, that even Rabbi Shimon prohibits moving them? Ulla said: In the latter clause of this Tosefta, we came back to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits moving items that are set-aside.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 拽砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞专 讝讜讟讗 讚讚注转讬讛 注诇讜讬讛 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 讚谞驻讬砖讬 诇讗

Mar Zutra strongly objects to Ulla鈥檚 explanation: If so, what is the meaning of the word however in the phrase: However, a cup and a bowl, etc.? Rabbi Yehuda prohibited moving an oil lamp as well. In what way could the legal status of a bowl be any different? Rather, Mar Zutra said: Actually, this must be explained differently. That phrase was stated by Rabbi Shimon. And when Rabbi Shimon permitted moving a lamp, that was in the case of a small lamp, which he has in mind, i.e., he is certain that the flame will be extinguished on Shabbat and that he will have the opportunity to use the remaining oil that day. However, these, the bowl and the lantern, which have much oil, no, he does not expect them to be extinguished and he sets them aside from use for the entire Shabbat.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讜转专 讛砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讜砖讘拽注专讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讛转诐 拽注专讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞专 讛讻讗 拽注专讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻讜住

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Using the remaining oil that is in an oil lamp or in a bowl is prohibited on Shabbat, and Rabbi Shimon permits using it. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does not distinguish between a candle and a bowl. The Gemara answers: There, where Rabbi Shimon permitted a bowl, was specifically in a case where it is similar to a lamp, i.e., a small bowl in which the flame will quickly extinguish. Here, where Rabbi Shimon prohibited using the oil remaining in a bowl, it is referring to a bowl that is similar to a cup, which is large.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 驻诪讜讟 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 讘讜 讘砖讘转 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪转讬专 讗住讜专 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜住专 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬讗讜住 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讗讬住讜专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞专讜转 砖诇 诪转讻转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞专 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 讘讜 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 驻诪讜讟 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 诇讗 讛讚诇讬拽讜 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专:

Rabbi Zeira said: A metal candlestick [pamot] that was kindled on Shabbat, according to Rabbi Shimon, who permits moving a lamp, it is prohibited because it is large. Whereas, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits moving a lamp, a metal candlestick is permitted because it does not become disgusting (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that an object that is set-aside [muktze] due to repugnance may not be moved, and he is not of the opinion that an object that is set-aside due to prohibition may not be moved, and therefore permits moving the candlestick? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: All metal candlesticks may be moved on Shabbat with the exception of a candlestick that was kindled on Shabbat itself? Apparently, he prohibits moving the metal candlestick, not because it is disgusting but because it is set-aside due to prohibition. Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows, Rabbi Zeira said: A metal candlestick that was kindled on Shabbat, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. One that was not kindled on Shabbat, everyone agrees that it is permitted because it is neither set aside due to prohibition nor set aside due to repugnance.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讟讛 砖讬讞讚讛 诇诪注讜转 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 诪讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 谞专 讞讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬砖谉

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A bed which one designated to place money upon it may not be moved on Shabbat because it is set-aside. It is prohibited even though it no longer has money upon it. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k raised an objection to Rav Yehuda from our mishna: One may move a new oil lamp on Shabbat but not an old one.

讜诪讛 谞专 讚诇讛讻讬 注讘讬讚讗 讻讬 诇讗 讛讚诇讬拽 讘讛 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讛 诪讟讛 讚诇讗讜 诇讛讻讬 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讟讛 砖讬讞讚讛 诇诪注讜转 讛谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 诇讗 讬讞讚讛 诇诪注讜转 讬砖 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

He explains his objection: And just as a lamp, which is made for this purpose, for lighting, when he did not light it, he is permitted to move it, a bed, which is not made for that purpose, for placing money on it, all the more so moving it would be permitted. Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A bed that one designated for money to be placed upon it, if one left money upon it one day, it becomes designated for that purpose and it is prohibited to move it on Shabbat. If one did not leave money upon it, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat. A bed, which one did not designate for money to be placed upon it, if there is money upon it on Shabbat itself, it is prohibited to move it on Shabbat. If there is not money on it, it is permitted to move it. And that is only when there was not money on it during the twilight period between Shabbat eve and Shabbat. If there was money on it at that time, the bed itself becomes set aside due to prohibition for the entire Shabbat, even if the money fell off the bed in the course of the day.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讜讻谞讬 砖诇讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 谞砖诪讟转 讗讬谉 讞讘讜专 诇讛 讜讗讬谉 谞诪讚讚转 注诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪爪诇转 注诪讛 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 讜讗讬谉 讙讜专专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘砖讘转 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转

Ulla said: Rabbi Eliezer raised an objection to Rav鈥檚 statement from that which we learned in a mishna. This mishna deals primarily with the laws of ritual impurity and discusses the relationship between a wagon and its undercarriage [mukheni], the system of wheels and the frame at the base of the wagon. And the Sages said: The wagon鈥檚 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鈥檃, as a vessel with a volume larger than forty se鈥檃 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 corpse. 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 sealed with regard to preventing ritual impurity. And, likewise, one may not pull the wagon on Shabbat when there is money upon it.

讛讗 讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 砖专讬讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讜 注诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讜专讘 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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. In this mishna, the prohibition is contingent exclusively on whether or not there is money on the wagon at that time. The Gemara answers: That mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside. And Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Since according to Rabbi Yehuda there is a prohibition of set-aside, the wagon became set aside from use during the twilight period and remains prohibited for the entire Shabbat.

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.

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 44: Ick, don’t touch that! Exactly.

More Muktzah. Still no statement to that effect by the Gemara. That which is disgusting, that which is designated not...

Shabbat 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 44

讗讬 诇讗 砖专讬转 诇讬讛 讗转讬 诇讻讘讜讬讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 砖讬诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讘诪转:

if you do not permit him to move the corpse in an atypical manner, he will come to extinguish the fire. The Sages permitted performing an act prohibited by rabbinic law so that one will not come to transgress a Torah prohibition. Rabbi Yehuda ben Sheila said that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish with regard to the issue of rescuing a corpse from a fire.

讗讬谉 谞讬讗讜转讬谉 讛讬诪谞讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪谉 讛诪讜讻谉: 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讜转专 讛砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讜砖讘拽注专讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专:

We learned in the mishna that one may not make use of the oil that drips from the candle on Shabbat because it is not among the oil prepared from Shabbat eve for use on Shabbat. With regard to this same issue, the Sages taught in a baraita: The remaining oil that is in the lamp or in a bowl in which a wick was burning is prohibited for use on Shabbat. However, Rabbi Shimon permits using the remaining oil as, according to his opinion, there is virtually nothing prohibited due to the prohibition of set-aside.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 谞专 讞讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬砖谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞专讜转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞专 讛讚讜诇拽 讘砖讘转:

MISHNA: The dispute in this mishna seems to be a local one; however, it is the key to several halakhot in the area of the prohibition of set-aside [muktze]. One may move a new oil lamp on Shabbat but not an old one that was already used. A lamp that was used is covered with soot and unsuitable for use. It is therefore considered set aside from use due to its disgusting nature. Rabbi Shimon says: All oil lamps may be moved on Shabbat except for an oil lamp that is burning on Shabbat, due to the concern that it might be extinguished.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 谞专 讞讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬砖谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞专讜转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞专 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 讘讜 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞专 讛讚讜诇拽 讘砖讘转 讻讘转讛 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讗讘诇 讻讜住 讜拽注专讛 讜注砖砖讬转 诇讗 讬讝讬讝诐 诪诪拽讜诪诐 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪住转驻拽 诪谉 讛谞专 讛讻讘讛 讜诪谉 讛砖诪谉 讛诪讟驻讟祝 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖注讛 砖讛谞专 讚讜诇拽

GEMARA: The Sages taught the dispute in the mishna in greater detail in a Tosefta: One may move a new oil lamp on Shabbat but not an old one; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: All oil lamps may be moved on Shabbat except for an oil lamp that they kindled on that Shabbat. Rabbi Meir does not hold that one must distance himself from objects that are disgusting. However, since the lamp was burning on Shabbat, it may not be moved, as it is an object set aside due to prohibition for the entire Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon says: All lamps may be moved except for an oil lamp that is burning on Shabbat. If the flame was extinguished, one is permitted to move it. However, a cup and a bowl and a lantern that are full of oil with a wick lit in them, one may not move them from their place even after the flame is extinguished. And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One may supply himself with oil from an extinguished candle and from the oil that drips from the lamp, and even while the lamp is burning.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讘讞讚讗 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讘讞讚讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讜驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讘讞讚讗 讚讗讬诇讜 讗讘讜讛 住讘专 讻讘讛 讗讬谉 诇讗 讻讘讛 诇讗 讜讗讬讛讜 住讘专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讻讘讛

Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father in one matter and disagrees with him in one matter. He holds in accordance with the opinion of his father in one matter, as he is not of the opinion that moving set-aside objects is prohibited. And he disagrees with him in one matter; as his father holds that if the flame was extinguished, yes, he may move it, if it was not extinguished, no, he may not move it. And Rabbi Eliezer holds: Even though the flame was not extinguished, it is permitted to carry the lamp and to use the oil that drips from it. In his opinion, doing so in no way extinguishes the flame and it is in no way comparable to extinguishing the flame.

讗讘诇 讻讜住 讜拽注专讛 讜注砖砖讬转 诇讗 讬讝讬讝诐 诪诪拽讜诪诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛谞讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Following Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 statement, it was taught in the Tosefta: However, a cup, and a bowl, and a lantern, one may not move them from their place. The Gemara asks: What is different about these, that even Rabbi Shimon prohibits moving them? Ulla said: In the latter clause of this Tosefta, we came back to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits moving items that are set-aside.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 讗诇讗 讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讬 拽砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谞专 讝讜讟讗 讚讚注转讬讛 注诇讜讬讛 讗讘诇 讛谞讬 讚谞驻讬砖讬 诇讗

Mar Zutra strongly objects to Ulla鈥檚 explanation: If so, what is the meaning of the word however in the phrase: However, a cup and a bowl, etc.? Rabbi Yehuda prohibited moving an oil lamp as well. In what way could the legal status of a bowl be any different? Rather, Mar Zutra said: Actually, this must be explained differently. That phrase was stated by Rabbi Shimon. And when Rabbi Shimon permitted moving a lamp, that was in the case of a small lamp, which he has in mind, i.e., he is certain that the flame will be extinguished on Shabbat and that he will have the opportunity to use the remaining oil that day. However, these, the bowl and the lantern, which have much oil, no, he does not expect them to be extinguished and he sets them aside from use for the entire Shabbat.

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讜转专 讛砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讜砖讘拽注专讛 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讛转诐 拽注专讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞专 讛讻讗 拽注专讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讻讜住

The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Using the remaining oil that is in an oil lamp or in a bowl is prohibited on Shabbat, and Rabbi Shimon permits using it. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does not distinguish between a candle and a bowl. The Gemara answers: There, where Rabbi Shimon permitted a bowl, was specifically in a case where it is similar to a lamp, i.e., a small bowl in which the flame will quickly extinguish. Here, where Rabbi Shimon prohibited using the oil remaining in a bowl, it is referring to a bowl that is similar to a cup, which is large.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 驻诪讜讟 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 讘讜 讘砖讘转 诇讚讘专讬 讛诪转讬专 讗住讜专 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜住专 诪讜转专 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 诪讬讗讜住 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 诪讞诪转 讗讬住讜专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞专讜转 砖诇 诪转讻转 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞专 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 讘讜 讘砖讘转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 驻诪讜讟 砖讛讚诇讬拽讜 注诇讬讜 讘砖讘转 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗住讜专 诇讗 讛讚诇讬拽讜 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜转专:

Rabbi Zeira said: A metal candlestick [pamot] that was kindled on Shabbat, according to Rabbi Shimon, who permits moving a lamp, it is prohibited because it is large. Whereas, according to Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits moving a lamp, a metal candlestick is permitted because it does not become disgusting (Rabbeinu 岣nanel). The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that an object that is set-aside [muktze] due to repugnance may not be moved, and he is not of the opinion that an object that is set-aside due to prohibition may not be moved, and therefore permits moving the candlestick? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: All metal candlesticks may be moved on Shabbat with the exception of a candlestick that was kindled on Shabbat itself? Apparently, he prohibits moving the metal candlestick, not because it is disgusting but because it is set-aside due to prohibition. Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows, Rabbi Zeira said: A metal candlestick that was kindled on Shabbat, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. One that was not kindled on Shabbat, everyone agrees that it is permitted because it is neither set aside due to prohibition nor set aside due to repugnance.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讟讛 砖讬讞讚讛 诇诪注讜转 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 诪讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 谞专 讞讚砖 讗讘诇 诇讗 讬砖谉

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A bed which one designated to place money upon it may not be moved on Shabbat because it is set-aside. It is prohibited even though it no longer has money upon it. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k raised an objection to Rav Yehuda from our mishna: One may move a new oil lamp on Shabbat but not an old one.

讜诪讛 谞专 讚诇讛讻讬 注讘讬讚讗 讻讬 诇讗 讛讚诇讬拽 讘讛 砖专讬 诇讟诇讟讜诇讛 诪讟讛 讚诇讗讜 诇讛讻讬 注讘讬讚讗 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讟讛 砖讬讞讚讛 诇诪注讜转 讛谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 诇讗 讛谞讬讞 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 诇讗 讬讞讚讛 诇诪注讜转 讬砖 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讜讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转

He explains his objection: And just as a lamp, which is made for this purpose, for lighting, when he did not light it, he is permitted to move it, a bed, which is not made for that purpose, for placing money on it, all the more so moving it would be permitted. Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A bed that one designated for money to be placed upon it, if one left money upon it one day, it becomes designated for that purpose and it is prohibited to move it on Shabbat. If one did not leave money upon it, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat. A bed, which one did not designate for money to be placed upon it, if there is money upon it on Shabbat itself, it is prohibited to move it on Shabbat. If there is not money on it, it is permitted to move it. And that is only when there was not money on it during the twilight period between Shabbat eve and Shabbat. If there was money on it at that time, the bed itself becomes set aside due to prohibition for the entire Shabbat, even if the money fell off the bed in the course of the day.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讜讻谞讬 砖诇讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讗 谞砖诪讟转 讗讬谉 讞讘讜专 诇讛 讜讗讬谉 谞诪讚讚转 注诪讛 讜讗讬谉 诪爪诇转 注诪讛 讘讗讛诇 讛诪转 讜讗讬谉 讙讜专专讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘砖讘转 讘讝诪谉 砖讬砖 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转

Ulla said: Rabbi Eliezer raised an objection to Rav鈥檚 statement from that which we learned in a mishna. This mishna deals primarily with the laws of ritual impurity and discusses the relationship between a wagon and its undercarriage [mukheni], the system of wheels and the frame at the base of the wagon. And the Sages said: The wagon鈥檚 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鈥檃, as a vessel with a volume larger than forty se鈥檃 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 corpse. 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 sealed with regard to preventing ritual impurity. And, likewise, one may not pull the wagon on Shabbat when there is money upon it.

讛讗 讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪注讜转 砖专讬讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讜 注诇讬讛 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讜专讘 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

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. In this mishna, the prohibition is contingent exclusively on whether or not there is money on the wagon at that time. The Gemara answers: That mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside. And Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Since according to Rabbi Yehuda there is a prohibition of set-aside, the wagon became set aside from use during the twilight period and remains prohibited for the entire Shabbat.

Scroll To Top