Shabbat 142b — the Talmud in English

But did Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar actually disagree

with

him

regarding Shabbat, and does he prohibit what Rabbi Yehuda permits?!

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: One raises the meduma in a ratio of one to one hundred

on Shabbat.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

One should not be lenient in this even for the sake of the enjoyment of Shabbat, for it is possible to permit the meduma by

directing his eyes to this side and eating from the other side.

And we answer: Rabbi Yehuda always holds like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that it is possible to permit the meduma by directing one’s eyes, and in his view as well this is the reason for the permission on Shabbat; rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar permitted rectifying it on Shabbat only in this manner, and his reasoning is

that Rabbi Yehuda’s

is preferable

to that of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

and he holds that since it is permitted to rectify it by directing one’s eyes, it is no longer necessary to prohibit raising it, because raising it does not rectify it, since the rectification was already performed by directing one’s eyes.

Mishna:

A stone which

was forgotten from before Shabbat

on the mouth of a barrel

containing wine, and he wishes to drink from the wine on Shabbat, it is prohibited to remove the stone from the mouth of the barrel, and it is also prohibited to move the barrel with the stone to another place. Rather, he

tilts

the barrel

onto its side, and it

[the stone]

falls,

because shaking off muktze is not as severe as moving it.

If

the barrel was standing

between the barrels,

and if he tilts it, there is concern that the stone will break another barrel when it falls—

he raises

the barrel with the stone upon it,

and tilts

it

onto its side, and it

falls.

And likewise,

coins on a cushion—

he shakes the cushion and they fall.

If there was bird droppings upon it

[dirt]—

he wipes it with a rag

and he should not put water upon it, because putting water on fabric is considered laundering.

If

the droppings were on a cushion

of leather

on which putting water is not laundering—

one may put water upon it until it is removed.

But it is prohibited to scrub it, because this involves the prohibition of laundering with soft leather.

Gemara:

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: They taught

that it is permitted to tilt the barrel

only when he forgot

the stone upon it and did not want it to remain upon it on Shabbat.

But if he placed

the stone intentionally so that it would remain there on Shabbat,

the mouth

of the barrel

becomes a base for a prohibited object,

and it is prohibited to tilt the barrel. And we do not say that by placing the stone for the use of covering, it becomes a vessel and is no longer muktze.

We learned in the Mishna:

If it was between the barrels,

he raises it and tilts it onto its side, and it falls.

The Gemara establishes the principle that if it were not possible to use the wine without removing the stone by itself, the Sages would not have prohibited removing the stone on account of the prohibition of muktze, for selecting refuse from food is prohibited only on account of the labor of selecting, and not on account of moving muktze. And there is no distinction between a stone on the mouth of the barrel and a stone inside the wine, which is permitted to remove when there is no labor of selecting involved. However, the Mishna says that if it is possible to avoid moving muktze, one must avoid it even in selecting refuse from food.

And we inquire:

Who is the tanna who says that wherever there is a prohibited and a permitted object

[namely, the tanna who holds that wherever there is a muktze prohibition and a permitted object] mixed together, and there is no prohibition in separating them, and it is possible to take the prohibited object and separate the permitted object from it, while it is also possible to take the permitted object and separate the prohibited object from it, even though in this manner as well one moves muktze, nevertheless

we exert ourselves with the permitted object, but do not exert ourselves with the prohibited object,

and therefore we prefer removing the stone by means of the barrel?

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

But according to the Rabbis who disagree with him, it is permitted to remove the stone from the mouth of the barrel even though it is possible to remove it by means of the barrel.

For we learned: One who selects legumes on a festival

from their refuse,

Beit Shammai say: He selects

the

food

from the refuse

and eats

as on Shabbat, because the labor of selecting was not permitted on a festival.

And Beit Hillel say: He selects in his usual manner, in his lap,

refuse from food, and even with a kanon

and a tamḥui

which are vessels with which it is rabbinically prohibited to select on Shabbat. But it is prohibited to select with vessels with which it is prohibited to select on Shabbat by Torah law.

And it was taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: When do these words apply

that they disputed? When

the food

was

greater than the refuse,

and the effort involved in selecting the food was greater than the effort involved in selecting the refuse. Therefore, Beit Hillel permitted removing the refuse and moving it even though it is muktze, since in their view there is no prohibition of selecting in this.

But

if the

refuse was greater than the food

and the effort of selecting it was greater,— according to

everyone, he selects food

and not refuse. And although selecting the refuse does not involve the prohibition of selecting, one must nevertheless avoid moving it because of the prohibition of muktze.

And we object:

But here

in our Mishna,

it is comparable to a case where the food is greater than the refuse,

for there is extra effort in removing the stone by means of the barrel. In such a case Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that it is permitted to select the refuse, and we should have permitted casting away the stone itself!

And we answer:

Here too

there is greater effort in taking the stone,

since if he wishes to take

the wine at the bottom of the barrel,

he cannot take

the

wine

below

until he takes

and raises

it

the barrel in order to pour out the wine at its bottom; and in any event he will have to raise and tilt the barrel. When he shakes off the stone while raising the barrel, he reduces the effort. Therefore,

it is comparable to a case where the refuse is greater than the food,

and one may not permit moving the stone by itself.

We learned in the Mishna:

If it was between the barrels—

he raises

it and tilts it onto its side, and it falls.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: If the barrel was placed in a storehouse

of barrels,

or if glass vessels were placed beneath it—

he raises

it and takes it

to another place, and tilts

it there

onto its side, and it

[the stone]

falls, and he takes from it what he needs and returns it

to its place.

We learned in the Mishna:

Coins on a cushion—

he shakes the cushion and they fall.

Rav Hiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: They taught this only with regard to one who forgot

the money on the pillow,

but if he deliberately placed

it there so that it would remain on the pillow on Shabbat,

the pillow becomes

a base

for a prohibited object

and it is prohibited to move it.

Rabba bar bar Hana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They taught

that one must shake the money off the pillow

only

when he needs the pillow

for its use

—to use it.

But

if he is moving it

for the sake of

using its

place—

he may move it while the money is still on it,

because if he shakes it off, the money will interfere with his use of the place.

And so Rabbi Hiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: They taught this only when he needs it for its use; but when he needs its place—

he may move it while the money is still on it.

We learned in the Mishna:

Money that is on a pillow—

he shakes

the pillow, and the money falls off.

The Mishna permits moving a permitted object together with an item that is muktze, an object set aside and prohibited to move on Shabbat, when this is done for the sake of the permitted object. The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, cites statements of amoraim, Sages of the Gemara period, who permit moving a muktze object together with a permitted object even for the sake of the muktze object, in order to prevent financial loss.

Rabbi Oshaya said: If one forgot his wallet in a courtyard—

he places a loaf of bread or a child on it, and moves it.

Rav Yitzhak said: If one forgot a brick in a courtyard

and is concerned that it might be stolen—

he places a loaf of bread or a child on it and moves it.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said: Once they forgot a sack full of money in a public thoroughfare

[in the public domain]

and they came and asked Rabbi Yohanan, and he said to them: Place a loaf of bread or a child on it, and move it.

This must be done in a manner that does not involve the prohibition of carrying an object four cubits in the public domain.

Mar Zutra said: The halakha is in accordance with all these teachings

[the halakha follows the statements of these amoraim], but they permitted this only

when one forgot

the muktze object in an unprotected place, where he would suffer financial loss, and not when one deliberately placed a muktze object before Shabbat in order to move it on Shabbat by means of this permission.

Rav Ashi said:

The halakha does not follow them, and

even

in the case of

one who forgot it, they did not permit it

to move the object.

And the Sages said

that it is permitted to move an object together with

a loaf of bread or a child only in the case of a dead person

who is lying in the sun,

alone,

for the sake of human dignity.

Abaye placed a large spoon on bundles of grain

[Abaye placed a large spoon on bundles of grain] in order to permit moving the bundles together with the spoon. He relied on the permission stated above.

Rava placed a knife on the wing of a dove

that had not been cooked or salted

and moved it

together with the knife.

Rav Yosef said: How sharp are the teachings of the children

[How convinced are Abaye and Rava that they are clever, when what they have said is merely childish teaching], for

even if one were to say that the Sages said

that it is permitted to move an object together with a loaf of bread, a child, or a utensil,

when one forgot it,

and because of financial loss, but to deliberately place it

initially

relying on this permission—

who ever said that?!

Abaye said:

Indeed, it is not permitted to move a muktze object by means of a loaf of bread or a child except when one forgot it. But

if I were not an important person,

and therefore stringent with myself,

why would I need to place a spoon on the bundles?

The bundles are not muktze. Although they are not fit to eat without preparing them through activities prohibited on Shabbat,

they are fit to sit

[on]

.

Since there are people who mistakenly think that the bundles are muktze, and I am concerned that they will learn from me to be lenient in prohibitions, I placed a spoon on them. Those who are mistaken will think that I had forgotten it, and that I am therefore permitted to move the bundles by means of a loaf of bread or a child.

Rava said: As for me, if I were not an important person, why would I need to place a knife on the wing of a dove? It is fit for me to eat raw

[it is fit for me to eat it raw]!

The Gemara infers:

The reason

that it is permitted is

that it is fit

to be eaten raw. If it is not fit to be eaten raw, it is not permitted

to move the wing of the dove, even though it is fit for dogs. An object intended for human consumption after cooking is not considered prepared for dogs merely because it could be fed to them. Since it is prohibited to cook it on Shabbat, it is muktze.

Does this mean that Rava agrees with Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that there is muktze,

and maintains this view?

In the chapter “One Whom Darkness Overtook” [156b], Rabbi Yehuda said: If an animal died on Shabbat, it is prohibited to move it or feed it to dogs, because at twilight it had been designated for human consumption, whereas when it died its intended use changed and it became designated for dogs. An object that was not “prepared” for its new use, which came into being on Shabbat, is muktze according to Rabbi Yehuda. According to Rabbi Shimon, it is permitted to move the carcass for two reasons: First, the animal was not set aside at twilight from being used as food for dogs, even though it had been designated for human consumption. Second, even an object that was set aside at twilight was not set aside for the entire Shabbat; an object whose intended use changed on Shabbat is not muktze.

The Gemara raises a contradiction in Rava’s statements:

But didn’t Rava say to his attendant

[his servant] on a Festival:

Roast for me

[roast for me]

a duck wing, and throw its innards to the cat

[and throw its innards to the cat]? Thus, Rava acted in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, for the innards of a duck are fit for human consumption on weekdays, but now, when it was slaughtered on the Festival, its innards became suitable as food for an animal, because on a Festival people generally eat only high-quality meat. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the innards are muktze, because at twilight they were still prepared for human consumption!