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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 20, 2020 | 讻状讜 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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 45

Today’s shiur is dedicated by Di Gittel Kuchar on her father, Michael Neuhauser, Moshe ben Avraham and Rivka z”l’s first yahrzeit. He had a love of learning which his family continues. And for the birth of a grandson on Israel who was given his name at the brit on Friday.聽

The gemara concluded that Rav held like Rabbi Yehuda regarding muktze. After bringing a proof for this, the gemara questions this assumption from a different source. But it is resolved. There are various discussions and opinions regarding cases where even Rabbi Shimon would hold there is a law of muktze. Is it only in a candle while it is lit – mutzke because it is designated for a mitzvah? Or only figs and dates that are clearly set aside not to be eaten? Animals in the wild? There is also a debate regarding whether Rabbis like Rebbi and Rabbi Yochanan held like Rabbi Shimon or not?

转讜讻谉 讝讛 转讜专讙诐 讙诐 诇: 注讘专讬转

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讬住转讘专讗 讚专讘 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讞讬谉 谞专 注诇 讙讘讬 讚拽诇 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 谞专 注诇 讙讘讬 讚拽诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖谞讬 讘讬谉 砖讘转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 砖讘转 讜诪讛 诇讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to say that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rav said: One may place a lamp atop a palm tree on Shabbat eve to burn on Shabbat, and one may not place a lamp atop a palm tree on a Festival. Granted, if you say that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this matter; that is why there is a distinction between Shabbat and a Festival. Since the lamp is set-aside [muktze] on Shabbat one will not come to carry it. Since one is permitted to carry a lamp on a Festival, there is concern that one might climb the palm tree or make use of the tree on the Festival and thereby transgress the rabbinic prohibition against making use of something connected to the ground on a Festival. However, if you say that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the lamp is not set-aside even on Shabbat, what difference is there to me between Shabbat and a Festival? Ostensibly, there should be no distinction between the two.

讜专讘 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 诪讛讜 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 砖专讙讗 讚讞谞讜讻转讗 诪拽诪讬 讞讘专讬 讘砖讘转讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 砖注转 讛讚讞拽 砖讗谞讬 讚讛讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讛讻讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

The Gemara asks: And does Rav really hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that it is prohibited to move an object that is set-aside? Didn鈥檛 they raise a dilemma before Rav: What is the ruling with regard to moving a Hanukkah candle from before the 岣barei, Persian Zoroastrian fire priests, on Shabbat? Those priests prohibited lighting fires on certain days. In order to prevent them from discovering that he lit Hanukkah candles it was necessary to quickly move them. And he said to them: One may well do so. Apparently, Rav does not hold that there is a prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara answers: This is not a proof, as exigent circumstances are different and Rav permitted this due to the danger involved. As Rav Kahana and Rav Ashi said to Rav on this matter: Is that the halakha? He said to them: Rabbi Shimon is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances like this one.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讟讬诐 砖讝专注谉 讘拽专拽注 讜讘讬爪讬诐 砖转讞转 转专谞讙讜诇转 诪讛讜 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讘砖注讛 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诇拽 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜拽爪讛 诇诪爪讜转讜 讛讜拽爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专讜

On this same matter Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: Wheat kernels that he sowed in the ground that have not yet taken root and he could still gather them, and eggs that were placed beneath the hen and the incubation process has begun, what is the halakha in these cases? Would Rabbi Shimon agree that in these cases it is prohibited for use on Shabbat? One side of the dilemma is: When is Rabbi Shimon not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside? In a case where one did not reject the object with his own hands, i.e., he did not perform an action setting the object aside. However, in a case where he rejected it with his own hands, he is of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside. When he sowed the wheat, he rejected it with his own hands. The same is true with regard to the egg; by placing it under the hen to hatch, he actively rejected it. The other side of the dilemma is: Or, perhaps there is no difference between the cases and Rabbi Shimon holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside in either case. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: There is only a prohibition of set-aside, according to Rabbi Shimon, in the case of oil that is in the lamp while it is burning. Since it was set aside for its mitzva, the lighting of Shabbat candles, and it was also set aside for its prohibition, it is prohibited due to the concern that one might inadvertently extinguish the flame if he moves it while it is burning.

讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讜拽爪讛 诇诪爪讜转讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 住讬讻讻讛 讻讛诇讻转讛 讜注讬讟专讛 讘拽专诪讬诐 讜讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讜转诇讛 讘讛 讗讙讜讝讬谉 讗驻专住拽讬谉 砖拽讚讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬谉 讜讗驻专讻诇讬 砖诇 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘讜诇讬谉 讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讗住讜专 诇讛住转驻拽 诪讛谉 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜

The Gemara asks: And does he not hold that the prohibition of set-aside applies to an object set aside only for its mitzva without any prohibition? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements and decorated it for aesthetic purposes with colored hangings and tapestries, and hung as decorations nuts, peaches, almonds and pomegranates, and grape branches, and wreaths made of stalks, wine, oils, and fine flour, it is prohibited to supply himself from them until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. Since they were all set aside for the mitzva of sukka, all other uses are prohibited. And if one stipulated at the time that he hung them in the sukka that he is not designating them exclusively for this purpose, but he intends to use them for other purposes as well, their use is entirely in accordance with his stipulation. He is permitted to use them as he chooses.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜砖讜讬谉 讘住讜讻转 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 砖讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜 讻注讬谉 砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜拽爪讛 诇诪爪讜转讜 讛讜拽爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讘砖注讛 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诇拽 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜拽爪讛 诇诪爪讜转讜 讛讜拽爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专讜

And from where do we know that this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? We ascertained this from a comparison to a baraita that was taught by Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef. As Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef taught before Rabbi Yo岣nan: One may not take wood from the sukka that was constructed for shade on any Festival, even if the wood fell from the sukka on the Festival. Because it is prohibited to destroy the sukka on the Festival, it was set aside before the Festival for the entire duration of the Festival. Rather, one may take wood only from what is beside the sukka, i.e., bundles of wood that are not being used for the sukka. When he placed them there, his intention was to use them during the Festival. And Rabbi Shimon permits taking wood even from the sukka itself, since he holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that taking wood from the sukka constructed for the Sukkot festival is prohibited during the Festival. And if one stipulated about the wood that he will be able to use it during the Festival, everything is in accordance with his stipulation. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon prohibits using an object that was set aside due only to a mitzva, even though it was not set aside due to a prohibition. Therefore, the Gemara emends Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: There is no halakha of set-aside according to Rabbi Shimon except in a case similar to oil in the candle. It is not necessary that there be both a prohibited labor and a prohibition due to the mitzva. Rather, since it was set aside for the mitzva alone, it is thereby set aside for the prohibition. It was also stated: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There is only a prohibition of set-aside according to Rabbi Shimon in a case similar to oil in the candle while it is burning; since it was set aside for its mitzva, it was set aside for its prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪讬诪讜拽讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讜诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘转讗谞讬诐 讜讛讜转讬专 讜讛注诇谉 诇讙讙 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘注谞讘讬诐 讜讛讜转讬专 讜讛注诇谉 诇讙讙 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 爪讬诪讜拽讬谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讚 砖讬讝诪讬谉 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讗驻专住拽讬谉 讜讞讘讜砖讬谉 讜讘砖讗专 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 驻讬专讜转

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There is only a prohibition of set-aside according to Rabbi Shimon in the cases of dried figs and raisins alone. The case of one who takes figs and raisins up to his roof in order to dry them in the sun is the only situation in which Rabbi Shimon holds that they are prohibited on Shabbat due to the prohibition of set-aside. Since in the initial stages of the process they emit a bad odor and are unfit for consumption, one consciously sets them aside. The Gemara challenges: And other items are not included in the prohibition of set-aside? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who was eating figs and left some over and took them up to the roof to make them into dried figs, and likewise one who was eating grapes and left some over and took them up to the roof to make them into raisins, one may not eat them on Shabbat unless he designates them to be eaten before Shabbat. Otherwise, they are prohibited as set-aside. And you would say the same with regard to peaches, and quinces, and all other types of fruit that one left out to dry. It is prohibited to eat them all on Shabbat due to set-aside.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara seeks to clarify: Whose opinion is it in the baraita? If you say that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this baraita is superfluous. If in a case where one did not reject it with his own hands, he holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside, in a case where he rejected it by his own hand, all the more so that it is prohibited. There is no need to articulate the halakha in this unique case.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗讻讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讛讝诪谞讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讛注诇谉 诇讙讙 讗住讜讞讬 讗住讞讬 诇讚注转讬讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rather, isn鈥檛 this baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Apparently, he expands the halakhot of set-aside beyond dried figs and raisins. The Gemara rejects this: Actually, this halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda who holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside. And the case cited here, where he was eating figs, is necessary in order to teach us a novel halakha. It may enter your mind to say that since one was in the course of eating, he does not require prior designation; and if he changed his mind he may immediately retrieve the dried figs that he placed on the roof. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that since he brought them up to the roof, he diverted his attention from them and they are completely set-aside.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 诪专讘讬

On the same topic: Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, raised a dilemma before his father, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi:

驻爪注讬诇讬 转诪专讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪讬诪讜拽讬谉 讘诇讘讚

Unripe dates that are placed in baskets to ripen and until they are ripe can only be eaten with difficulty, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, what is their legal status as far as moving them on Shabbat is concerned? Are they considered set-aside? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: There is only a prohibition of set-aside according to Rabbi Shimon in the cases of dried figs and raisins alone.

讜专讘讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛讘讬讬转讜转 讜转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讜转 讘驻住讞 讜谞讻谞住讜转 讘专讘讬注讛 讘讬讬转讜转 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讜转 讜专讜注讜转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讘讗讜转 讜诇谞讜转 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讘讬讬转讜转 讛谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讻诇 砖专讜注讜转 讘讗驻专 讜讗讬谉 谞讻谞住讜转 诇讬砖讜讘 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

The Gemara challenges this: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not hold that there is a prohibition of set-aside? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that on a Festival, before they are slaughtered, one may neither give water to, in order to ease removal of their hides, nor slaughter non-domesticated, desert animals, animals that are always grazing in the fields? Since people do not generally tend to them, they are considered set-aside and may not be used. However, one may give water to and slaughter domesticated animals. And it was taught in a baraita that these are non-domesticated, desert animals: Any animals that leave their sheds on Passover and only enter their sheds with the advent of the rainy season. Domesticated animals are any animals that go out to graze beyond the city limits, and come and sleep within the city limits. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: These and those are both domesticated. And these are the non-domesticated, desert animals that are prohibited due to the prohibition of set-aside: Any animals that graze in the grazing area and neither enter the town during the summer nor during the rainy season. It is these animals that it is prohibited to give water to or slaughter on a Festival. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside even in the case of animals.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讻讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪讬诪讜拽讬谉 讚诪讬讬谉 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Several resolutions are proposed to this contradiction: If you wish, say that these non-domesticated animals that graze in the grazing areas throughout the year are also considered like dried figs and raisins. Even Rabbi Shimon would agree to this halakha. And if you wish, say instead: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son that answer, he was saying it to him in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and he himself does not hold that way.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讬转 诇讬 诪讜拽爪讛 讻诇诇 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讬讜爪讗讜转 讘驻住讞 讜谞讻谞住讜转 讘专讘讬注讛 讚讘讬讬转讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

And if you wish, say instead: In that baraita, he spoke to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, and this is how his statement must be understood: In my opinion I do not hold that there is a prohibition of set-aside at all. However, according to your opinion, at least agree with me that animals that leave their sheds on Passover and only enter their sheds with the advent of the rainy season are domesticated. And the Rabbis said to him: No, those are non-domesticated animals.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 拽专讜讬讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 住专讜讬讗 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讬谞讛 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇转 诪讛讜 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讜诐 注砖讜讬 讗诇讗 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗驻专讜讞 诪转

As to the essential dispute with regard to the laws of set-aside, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? Didn鈥檛 an Elder from Keruya, and some say that he was from Seruya, raise a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to a hen鈥檚 roost, what is its legal status as far as moving it on Shabbat is concerned? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Isn鈥檛 the roost made exclusively for hens to be inside it? Since it is not designated for use by people, moving it is prohibited. Apparently, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to set-aside. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a special case, when there is a dead chick in the roost. Moving the roost is prohibited due to the dead chick, which is set-aside.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 (讚专讘) 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 [讗驻讬诇讜] 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘讬爪讛

The Gemara continues to ask: This works out well according to the opinion of Mar bar Ameimar in the name of Rav, who said: Rabbi Shimon agreed in the case of animals that died on Shabbat, that they are prohibited on Shabbat due to set-aside. However, according to the opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said: Rabbi Shimon was in disagreement even in the case of animals that died, and said that they are permitted and are not prohibited as set-aside, what can be said? The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? With a case where there is an egg that was laid on Shabbat in the roost. Because it was laid on Shabbat it is considered set-aside, and using the egg is prohibited. The thought of using it never entered anyone鈥檚 mind before Shabbat.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘讬爪转 讗驻专讜讞

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: One who is of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside, is also of the opinion that there is a prohibition of an object that came into being on Shabbat or on a Festival; and one who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside, is also not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of an object that came into being. This case is no different than other cases of set-aside. The Gemara responds: This is referring to a case where the roost has an egg with a chick in it. Even Rabbi Shimon would agree that moving an egg of that sort is prohibited since it is fit for neither human nor animal consumption.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

This explanation was cited to explain that Rabbi Yo岣nan could hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, when Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that there is a prohibition of set-aside. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that there is no prohibition of set-aside. Rav Yosef said: That is what Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The inference is: They said; however, he himself does not hold that this is the halakha.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讘讬 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚诪谉 讞讬驻讗 讜谞驻诇 诪谞专转讗 注诇 讙诇讬诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讜诇讗 讟讬诇讟诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 转诇诪讬讚讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you yourself did not hold that Rabbi Yo岣nan rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even before Rav Yitz岣k came and cited this statement in his name? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Asi happen to come to the house of Rabbi Abba who was from the city Haifa, and a candelabrum fell onto Rabbi Asi鈥檚 cloak and he did not move it? What is the reason that he did not lift it? Is it not because Rabbi Asi was a student of Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside? Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞专转讗 拽讗诪专转 诪谞专转讗 砖讗谞讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讛讜专讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘爪讬讚谉 诪谞讜专讛 讛谞讬讟诇转 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讘谞专 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘诇 诪谞讜专讛 讘讬谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转 讘讬谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讛

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Candelabrum you say; are you citing a proof from the case of a candelabrum? A candelabrum is different because there is a unique halakha in that case. As Rabbi A岣 bar Rabbi 岣nina said that Rabbi Asi said that Reish Lakish issued a ruling in the city of Sidon: A candelabrum that can be moved in one of his hands, one is permitted to move it on Shabbat. However, if it is so heavy that one must move it with his two hands, it is prohibited to move it. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: We have permission to carry only in the case of an oil lamp, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, with regard to a candelabrum, both one that is carried in one hand and one that is carried in two hands, it is prohibited to move it.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 拽讜讘注 诇讛 诪拽讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讛专讬 讻讬诇转 讞转谞讬诐 讚讗讚诐 拽讜讘注 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讬诇转 讞转谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that there is a unique prohibition in the case of a candelabrum? Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: Since a person usually designates a fixed place for it due to its size and its use, it is considered a built-in part of the house, and moving the candelabrum is like dismantling the house. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: A groom鈥檚 canopy is an object for which a person designates a set place, and, nevertheless, Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: With regard to a groom鈥檚 canopy,

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 sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 45: When You Hang a Burning Lamp in Your Palm Tree

More on Muktzah. Including the case in the title, and how it relates to bein hashmashot. Plus: R. Shimon's minority...

Shabbat 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 45

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讬住转讘专讗 讚专讘 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讞讬谉 谞专 注诇 讙讘讬 讚拽诇 讘砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 诪谞讬讞讬谉 谞专 注诇 讙讘讬 讚拽诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚专讘 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖谞讬 讘讬谉 砖讘转 诇讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诪讛 诇讬 砖讘转 讜诪讛 诇讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable to say that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rav said: One may place a lamp atop a palm tree on Shabbat eve to burn on Shabbat, and one may not place a lamp atop a palm tree on a Festival. Granted, if you say that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in this matter; that is why there is a distinction between Shabbat and a Festival. Since the lamp is set-aside [muktze] on Shabbat one will not come to carry it. Since one is permitted to carry a lamp on a Festival, there is concern that one might climb the palm tree or make use of the tree on the Festival and thereby transgress the rabbinic prohibition against making use of something connected to the ground on a Festival. However, if you say that Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that the lamp is not set-aside even on Shabbat, what difference is there to me between Shabbat and a Festival? Ostensibly, there should be no distinction between the two.

讜专讘 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 诪讛讜 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 砖专讙讗 讚讞谞讜讻转讗 诪拽诪讬 讞讘专讬 讘砖讘转讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 砖注转 讛讚讞拽 砖讗谞讬 讚讛讗 讗诪专讜 诇讛讜 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讛讻讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讻讚讬 讛讜讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇住诪讜讱 注诇讬讜 讘砖注转 讛讚讞拽

The Gemara asks: And does Rav really hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that it is prohibited to move an object that is set-aside? Didn鈥檛 they raise a dilemma before Rav: What is the ruling with regard to moving a Hanukkah candle from before the 岣barei, Persian Zoroastrian fire priests, on Shabbat? Those priests prohibited lighting fires on certain days. In order to prevent them from discovering that he lit Hanukkah candles it was necessary to quickly move them. And he said to them: One may well do so. Apparently, Rav does not hold that there is a prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara answers: This is not a proof, as exigent circumstances are different and Rav permitted this due to the danger involved. As Rav Kahana and Rav Ashi said to Rav on this matter: Is that the halakha? He said to them: Rabbi Shimon is worthy to rely upon in exigent circumstances like this one.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讞讟讬诐 砖讝专注谉 讘拽专拽注 讜讘讬爪讬诐 砖转讞转 转专谞讙讜诇转 诪讛讜 讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讘砖注讛 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诇拽 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜拽爪讛 诇诪爪讜转讜 讛讜拽爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专讜

On this same matter Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: Wheat kernels that he sowed in the ground that have not yet taken root and he could still gather them, and eggs that were placed beneath the hen and the incubation process has begun, what is the halakha in these cases? Would Rabbi Shimon agree that in these cases it is prohibited for use on Shabbat? One side of the dilemma is: When is Rabbi Shimon not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside? In a case where one did not reject the object with his own hands, i.e., he did not perform an action setting the object aside. However, in a case where he rejected it with his own hands, he is of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside. When he sowed the wheat, he rejected it with his own hands. The same is true with regard to the egg; by placing it under the hen to hatch, he actively rejected it. The other side of the dilemma is: Or, perhaps there is no difference between the cases and Rabbi Shimon holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside in either case. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: There is only a prohibition of set-aside, according to Rabbi Shimon, in the case of oil that is in the lamp while it is burning. Since it was set aside for its mitzva, the lighting of Shabbat candles, and it was also set aside for its prohibition, it is prohibited due to the concern that one might inadvertently extinguish the flame if he moves it while it is burning.

讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讜拽爪讛 诇诪爪讜转讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 住讬讻讻讛 讻讛诇讻转讛 讜注讬讟专讛 讘拽专诪讬诐 讜讘住讚讬谞讬谉 讛诪爪讜讬讬专讬谉 讜转诇讛 讘讛 讗讙讜讝讬谉 讗驻专住拽讬谉 砖拽讚讬诐 讜专诪讜谞讬谉 讜讗驻专讻诇讬 砖诇 注谞讘讬诐 讜注讟专讜转 砖诇 砖讘讜诇讬谉 讬讬谞讜转 砖诪谞讬诐 讜住诇转讜转 讗住讜专 诇讛住转驻拽 诪讛谉 注讚 诪讜爪讗讬 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讛讗讞专讜谉 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜

The Gemara asks: And does he not hold that the prohibition of set-aside applies to an object set aside only for its mitzva without any prohibition? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who roofed the sukka in accordance with its halakhic requirements and decorated it for aesthetic purposes with colored hangings and tapestries, and hung as decorations nuts, peaches, almonds and pomegranates, and grape branches, and wreaths made of stalks, wine, oils, and fine flour, it is prohibited to supply himself from them until the conclusion of the last day of the Festival. Since they were all set aside for the mitzva of sukka, all other uses are prohibited. And if one stipulated at the time that he hung them in the sukka that he is not designating them exclusively for this purpose, but he intends to use them for other purposes as well, their use is entirely in accordance with his stipulation. He is permitted to use them as he chooses.

讜诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 谞讜讟诇讬谉 注爪讬诐 诪谉 讛住讜讻讛 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛住诪讜讱 诇讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讜砖讜讬谉 讘住讜讻转 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 砖讛讬讗 讗住讜专讛 讜讗诐 讛转谞讛 注诇讬讛 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 转谞讗讜 讻注讬谉 砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜拽爪讛 诇诪爪讜转讜 讛讜拽爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专讜 讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 砖诪谉 砖讘谞专 讘砖注讛 砖讛讜讗 讚讜诇拽 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜拽爪讛 诇诪爪讜转讜 讛讜拽爪讛 诇讗讬住讜专讜

And from where do we know that this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? We ascertained this from a comparison to a baraita that was taught by Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef. As Rabbi 岣yya bar Yosef taught before Rabbi Yo岣nan: One may not take wood from the sukka that was constructed for shade on any Festival, even if the wood fell from the sukka on the Festival. Because it is prohibited to destroy the sukka on the Festival, it was set aside before the Festival for the entire duration of the Festival. Rather, one may take wood only from what is beside the sukka, i.e., bundles of wood that are not being used for the sukka. When he placed them there, his intention was to use them during the Festival. And Rabbi Shimon permits taking wood even from the sukka itself, since he holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside. And Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon agree that taking wood from the sukka constructed for the Sukkot festival is prohibited during the Festival. And if one stipulated about the wood that he will be able to use it during the Festival, everything is in accordance with his stipulation. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon prohibits using an object that was set aside due only to a mitzva, even though it was not set aside due to a prohibition. Therefore, the Gemara emends Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: There is no halakha of set-aside according to Rabbi Shimon except in a case similar to oil in the candle. It is not necessary that there be both a prohibited labor and a prohibition due to the mitzva. Rather, since it was set aside for the mitzva alone, it is thereby set aside for the prohibition. It was also stated: Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: There is only a prohibition of set-aside according to Rabbi Shimon in a case similar to oil in the candle while it is burning; since it was set aside for its mitzva, it was set aside for its prohibition.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪讬诪讜拽讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讜诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讘转讗谞讬诐 讜讛讜转讬专 讜讛注诇谉 诇讙讙 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘注谞讘讬诐 讜讛讜转讬专 讜讛注诇谉 诇讙讙 诇注砖讜转 诪讛谉 爪讬诪讜拽讬谉 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 注讚 砖讬讝诪讬谉 讜讻谉 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讗驻专住拽讬谉 讜讞讘讜砖讬谉 讜讘砖讗专 讻诇 诪讬谞讬 驻讬专讜转

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There is only a prohibition of set-aside according to Rabbi Shimon in the cases of dried figs and raisins alone. The case of one who takes figs and raisins up to his roof in order to dry them in the sun is the only situation in which Rabbi Shimon holds that they are prohibited on Shabbat due to the prohibition of set-aside. Since in the initial stages of the process they emit a bad odor and are unfit for consumption, one consciously sets them aside. The Gemara challenges: And other items are not included in the prohibition of set-aside? Wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: One who was eating figs and left some over and took them up to the roof to make them into dried figs, and likewise one who was eating grapes and left some over and took them up to the roof to make them into raisins, one may not eat them on Shabbat unless he designates them to be eaten before Shabbat. Otherwise, they are prohibited as set-aside. And you would say the same with regard to peaches, and quinces, and all other types of fruit that one left out to dry. It is prohibited to eat them all on Shabbat due to set-aside.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讛 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讛讬讻讗 讚讚讞讬讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The Gemara seeks to clarify: Whose opinion is it in the baraita? If you say that it is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this baraita is superfluous. If in a case where one did not reject it with his own hands, he holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside, in a case where he rejected it by his own hand, all the more so that it is prohibited. There is no need to articulate the halakha in this unique case.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗讻讬诇 讜讗讝讬诇 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 讛讝诪谞讛 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讛注诇谉 诇讙讙 讗住讜讞讬 讗住讞讬 诇讚注转讬讛 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rather, isn鈥檛 this baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Apparently, he expands the halakhot of set-aside beyond dried figs and raisins. The Gemara rejects this: Actually, this halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda who holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside. And the case cited here, where he was eating figs, is necessary in order to teach us a novel halakha. It may enter your mind to say that since one was in the course of eating, he does not require prior designation; and if he changed his mind he may immediately retrieve the dried figs that he placed on the roof. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that since he brought them up to the roof, he diverted his attention from them and they are completely set-aside.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 诪专讘讬

On the same topic: Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, raised a dilemma before his father, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi:

驻爪注讬诇讬 转诪专讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪讜拽爪讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诇讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪讬诪讜拽讬谉 讘诇讘讚

Unripe dates that are placed in baskets to ripen and until they are ripe can only be eaten with difficulty, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, what is their legal status as far as moving them on Shabbat is concerned? Are they considered set-aside? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: There is only a prohibition of set-aside according to Rabbi Shimon in the cases of dried figs and raisins alone.

讜专讘讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛诪讚讘专讬讜转 讗讘诇 诪砖拽讬谉 讜砖讜讞讟讬谉 讗转 讛讘讬讬转讜转 讜转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讜转 讘驻住讞 讜谞讻谞住讜转 讘专讘讬注讛 讘讬讬转讜转 讻诇 砖讬讜爪讗讜转 讜专讜注讜转 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜讘讗讜转 讜诇谞讜转 讘转讜讱 讛转讞讜诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讘讬讬转讜转 讛谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 诪讚讘专讬讜转 讻诇 砖专讜注讜转 讘讗驻专 讜讗讬谉 谞讻谞住讜转 诇讬砖讜讘 诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

The Gemara challenges this: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi not hold that there is a prohibition of set-aside? Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna that on a Festival, before they are slaughtered, one may neither give water to, in order to ease removal of their hides, nor slaughter non-domesticated, desert animals, animals that are always grazing in the fields? Since people do not generally tend to them, they are considered set-aside and may not be used. However, one may give water to and slaughter domesticated animals. And it was taught in a baraita that these are non-domesticated, desert animals: Any animals that leave their sheds on Passover and only enter their sheds with the advent of the rainy season. Domesticated animals are any animals that go out to graze beyond the city limits, and come and sleep within the city limits. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: These and those are both domesticated. And these are the non-domesticated, desert animals that are prohibited due to the prohibition of set-aside: Any animals that graze in the grazing area and neither enter the town during the summer nor during the rainy season. It is these animals that it is prohibited to give water to or slaughter on a Festival. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside even in the case of animals.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讻讙专讜讙专讜转 讜爪讬诪讜拽讬谉 讚诪讬讬谉 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

Several resolutions are proposed to this contradiction: If you wish, say that these non-domesticated animals that graze in the grazing areas throughout the year are also considered like dried figs and raisins. Even Rabbi Shimon would agree to this halakha. And if you wish, say instead: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi told his son that answer, he was saying it to him in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and he himself does not hold that way.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 讚专讘谞谉 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诇讬转 诇讬 诪讜拽爪讛 讻诇诇 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛转 讚讛讬讻讗 讚讬讜爪讗讜转 讘驻住讞 讜谞讻谞住讜转 讘专讘讬注讛 讚讘讬讬转讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬讜转 谞讬谞讛讜

And if you wish, say instead: In that baraita, he spoke to them in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, and this is how his statement must be understood: In my opinion I do not hold that there is a prohibition of set-aside at all. However, according to your opinion, at least agree with me that animals that leave their sheds on Passover and only enter their sheds with the advent of the rainy season are domesticated. And the Rabbis said to him: No, those are non-domesticated animals.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 拽专讜讬讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 住专讜讬讗 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽讬谞讛 砖诇 转专谞讙讜诇转 诪讛讜 诇讟诇讟讜诇讬 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻诇讜诐 注砖讜讬 讗诇讗 诇转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讗驻专讜讞 诪转

As to the essential dispute with regard to the laws of set-aside, Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this? Didn鈥檛 an Elder from Keruya, and some say that he was from Seruya, raise a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to a hen鈥檚 roost, what is its legal status as far as moving it on Shabbat is concerned? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: Isn鈥檛 the roost made exclusively for hens to be inside it? Since it is not designated for use by people, moving it is prohibited. Apparently, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to set-aside. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a special case, when there is a dead chick in the roost. Moving the roost is prohibited due to the dead chick, which is set-aside.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪专 讘专 讗诪讬诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 (讚专讘) 讚讗诪专 诪讜讚讛 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖讗住讜专讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讞诇讜拽 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 [讗驻讬诇讜] 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 砖诪转讜 砖讛谉 诪讜转专讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘讬爪讛

The Gemara continues to ask: This works out well according to the opinion of Mar bar Ameimar in the name of Rav, who said: Rabbi Shimon agreed in the case of animals that died on Shabbat, that they are prohibited on Shabbat due to set-aside. However, according to the opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, in the name of Rava, who said: Rabbi Shimon was in disagreement even in the case of animals that died, and said that they are permitted and are not prohibited as set-aside, what can be said? The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? With a case where there is an egg that was laid on Shabbat in the roost. Because it was laid on Shabbat it is considered set-aside, and using the egg is prohibited. The thought of using it never entered anyone鈥檚 mind before Shabbat.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛 诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞讜诇讚 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘讬爪转 讗驻专讜讞

The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say: One who is of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside, is also of the opinion that there is a prohibition of an object that came into being on Shabbat or on a Festival; and one who is not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of set-aside, is also not of the opinion that there is a prohibition of an object that came into being. This case is no different than other cases of set-aside. The Gemara responds: This is referring to a case where the roost has an egg with a chick in it. Even Rabbi Shimon would agree that moving an egg of that sort is prohibited since it is fit for neither human nor animal consumption.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 讜诇讬讛 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

This explanation was cited to explain that Rabbi Yo岣nan could hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, when Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that there is a prohibition of set-aside. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that there is no prohibition of set-aside. Rav Yosef said: That is what Rabba bar bar 岣na said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: They said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The inference is: They said; however, he himself does not hold that this is the halakha.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗转 诇讗 转住讘专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讗讬拽诇注讜 诇讘讬 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讚诪谉 讞讬驻讗 讜谞驻诇 诪谞专转讗 注诇 讙诇讬诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 讜诇讗 讟讬诇讟诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗住讬 转诇诪讬讚讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪讜拽爪讛

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And you yourself did not hold that Rabbi Yo岣nan rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, even before Rav Yitz岣k came and cited this statement in his name? Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Asi happen to come to the house of Rabbi Abba who was from the city Haifa, and a candelabrum fell onto Rabbi Asi鈥檚 cloak and he did not move it? What is the reason that he did not lift it? Is it not because Rabbi Asi was a student of Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside? Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪谞专转讗 拽讗诪专转 诪谞专转讗 砖讗谞讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讛讜专讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘爪讬讚谉 诪谞讜专讛 讛谞讬讟诇转 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转 诪讜转专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讘谞专 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讘诇 诪谞讜专讛 讘讬谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讘讬讚讜 讗讞转 讘讬谉 谞讬讟诇讛 讘砖转讬 讬讚讬讜 讗住讜专 诇讟诇讟诇讛

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Candelabrum you say; are you citing a proof from the case of a candelabrum? A candelabrum is different because there is a unique halakha in that case. As Rabbi A岣 bar Rabbi 岣nina said that Rabbi Asi said that Reish Lakish issued a ruling in the city of Sidon: A candelabrum that can be moved in one of his hands, one is permitted to move it on Shabbat. However, if it is so heavy that one must move it with his two hands, it is prohibited to move it. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: We have permission to carry only in the case of an oil lamp, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. However, with regard to a candelabrum, both one that is carried in one hand and one that is carried in two hands, it is prohibited to move it.

讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讜讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讚诐 拽讜讘注 诇讛 诪拽讜诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讛专讬 讻讬诇转 讞转谞讬诐 讚讗讚诐 拽讜讘注 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讻讬诇转 讞转谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that there is a unique prohibition in the case of a candelabrum? Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: Since a person usually designates a fixed place for it due to its size and its use, it is considered a built-in part of the house, and moving the candelabrum is like dismantling the house. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: A groom鈥檚 canopy is an object for which a person designates a set place, and, nevertheless, Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi 岣yya: With regard to a groom鈥檚 canopy,

Scroll To Top