Shabbat 142b (קמב:) — the Talmud in English

But Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar disagrees with him

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

with regard to it

with regard to Shabbat, and he prohibits that which Rabbi Yehuda permits!

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: One may raise the meduma in a ratio of one to one hundred

on Shabbat.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says:

One may not be lenient in this matter even for the sake of oneg Shabbat, since it is possible to permit the meduma by

focusing one’s eye on this side and eating from the other side .

And we answer: In fact, Rabbi Yehuda agrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar that it is possible to permit the meduma by focusing one’s eye, and in his view as well, this is the reason for the permission on Shabbat. However, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar permitted rectifying it on Shabbat only in this manner, and his position is that

Rabbi Yehuda’s view is preferable

and more lenient

than that of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,

for he maintains that once it is permitted to rectify the matter by focusing one’s eye, there is no longer any reason to prohibit lifting the object, since lifting it does not rectify anything: the rectification was already accomplished by focusing one’s eye .

Mishna:

A stone that

was forgotten before Shabbat

on the mouth of a barrel

containing wine, and one wishes to drink the wine on Shabbat, may not have the stone removed from the mouth of the barrel, nor may one move the barrel with the stone to another place. Rather, one

tilts

the barrel

onto its side, and it [

the stone]

falls,

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

If

the barrel was standing

between other barrels,

and if it were tilted there would be concern that the stone might break another barrel when it fell—

he raises

the barrel with the stone upon it ,

and tilts

it

onto its side, and it

falls .

And likewise,

coins that are on a cushion—

one shakes the cushion and they fall .

If there was filth upon it [

dirt]—

he wipes it with a cloth

but he may not place water upon it, because placing water on fabric is considered laundering .

If

the filth was on a cushion

of leather

upon which placing water is not considered laundering—

one may pour water upon it until it is removed.

But it is prohibited to scrub it, because doing so entails the prohibition of laundering soft leather .

Gemara:

Rav Huna said that Rav said: They taught

that it is permitted to tilt the barrel

only in a case of forgetting

the stone upon it, when he did not want it to remain there 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 . Nor do we say that by placing the stone for use as a cover, it becomes a utensil and is no longer muktzeh .

We learned in the Mishna:

If it was between the barrels

he raises the barrel and tilts it onto its side, and the stone falls.

The Gemara establishes the principle that if it were impossible to use the wine without removing the stone itself, the Sages would not have prohibited removing the stone on account of the prohibition of muktzeh . After all, selecting refuse from food is prohibited only on account of the labor of selecting, and not on account of moving muktzeh; there is no distinction between a stone on the mouth of the barrel and a stone inside the wine, which may be removed when doing so does not involve the labor of selecting. Nevertheless, the Mishna teaches that if it is possible to avoid moving muktzeh, one must avoid doing so even when separating refuse from food.

We inquire:

Who is the tanna who maintains that wherever there is a prohibited and a permitted item [

that is, the tanna who maintains that wherever muktzeh and a permitted item are mixed, and there is no prohibition against separating them, and it is possible either to take the prohibited item and separate the permitted item from it, or to take the permitted item and separate the prohibited item from it, although in the latter manner one also moves muktzeh, nevertheless]

we trouble ourselves with the permitted item, but do not trouble ourselves with the prohibited item,

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

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

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

As 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, even with a kanon

or a taḥlui,

which are utensils with which it is rabbinically prohibited to select on Shabbat. However, it is prohibited to select with utensils with which selecting is prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat.

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: When are these words stated

concerning their dispute? When

the food

is

more abundant than the refuse,

and the effort involved in selecting the food is greater than that involved in selecting the refuse. Therefore, Beit Hillel permitted removing the refuse and moving it even though it is muktzeh, since in their view this does not involve the prohibition of selecting .

But

if the

refuse was more abundant than the food

and the effort involved in selecting it was greater — according to

everyone, he selects the food

and not the refuse. Although selecting the refuse does not involve the prohibition of selecting, one must nevertheless avoid moving it because of the prohibition of muktzeh.

And we challenge this:

But here

in our Mishna,

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

since there is greater effort involved 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 therefore we should have been permitted to cast away the stone itself!

And we answer:

Here too,

there is greater effort involved in removing the stone,

since if he wishes to take

the wine at the bottom of the barrel,

he cannot take

the

wine

at the bottom

until he takes

and raises

it,

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

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

and it is not permitted to move the stone by itself .

We learned in the Mishna:

If it was between the barrels—

he raises

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

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

of barrels,

or glass vessels were placed beneath it—

he raises

and removes it

to another place, and tilts

it there

onto its side, and it [

the stone]

falls; and he takes from it whatever he needs and returns it

to its place .

We learned in the Mishna:

Coins that are on a cushion—

he shakes the cushion and they fall.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: They taught this only in a case where one forgot

the money on the pillow;

but if one intentionally 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 Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught

that one must shake the money off the pillow

only

when he needs the pillow

for its own use,

to use it.

But

if he moves it

for the sake of

using

its place—

he may move it with the money still on it,

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

And likewise, Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught: They taught this only when he needs it for its own use; but when he needs it for its place—

he may move it with the money 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 a muktze object when this is done for the sake of the permitted object. The Gemara cites statements of amoraim 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 or a child on it and moves it.

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

and is concerned that it might be stolen—

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

Rabbi Yehuda bar Sheila said that Rabbi Asi said: Once, they forgot a money-filled sack in a public thoroughfare

(in the public domain),

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

The act must be performed in a manner that does not involve the prohibition of moving 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 unsecured place where he would suffer financial loss, and not when one intentionally placed a muktze object on Friday in order to move it on Shabbat by means of this dispensation.

Rav Ashi said:

The halakha does not follow them, and

even

in a case where one

forgot it, too, they did not

permit the matter.

And they did not say

that the Sages permitted moving a muktze object together with

a loaf or a child except in the case of a corpse

lying in the sun,

alone,

because of human dignity.

Abaye placed a large ladle on bundles of grain

(Abaye placed a large ladle on bundles of grain) in order to permit moving the bundles by virtue of the ladle. He relied on the aforementioned dispensation.

Rava placed a knife on the wing of a dove

that had not been cooked or salted,

and moved it

along with the knife.

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

(How convinced are Abaye and Rava that they are clever, while what they said consists of childish teachings), for

say that the Sages stated

that it is permitted to move an object by virtue of a loaf, a child, or an implement

when one forgot it,

and because of financial loss; but to intentionally place it

from the outset

relying on this dispensation—

who said so?!

Abaye said:

In fact, moving a muktze object by means of a loaf or a child is permitted only when one forgot it. But

if I were not an important person,

and I were not stringent with myself,

why would I need a ladle on the bundles?

Are the bundles not muktze; and although they are not fit for eating without preparing them through labors prohibited on Shabbat,

they are fit for reclining

[sitting]

upon them.

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 with prohibitions, I placed a ladle 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 or a child.

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

(it is fit for me to eat it alive)!

The Gemara infers:

The reason

that it is permitted is

that it is fit

to be eaten raw. But 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 designated as human food through cooking is not prepared for dogs, and it is not considered fit for use merely because it could be fed to dogs. Since it is prohibited to cook it on Shabbat, it is muktze.

Does this mean that Rava holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who maintains that there is muktze,

and holds this opinion?

In the chapter “One Whose Darkness Fell” [156b], Rabbi Yehuda said: An animal that died on Shabbat may not be moved or fed to dogs, because at twilight the animal was designated for human consumption, and when it died, its designation changed and it became designated for dogs. According to Rabbi Yehuda, an object that was not “prepared” for its new use that arose on Shabbat is muktze. According to Rabbi Shimon, it is permitted to move the carcass for two reasons: a. The animal was not set aside at twilight from use as dog food, even though it was designated for human consumption. b. Even an object that was set aside at twilight was not set aside for the entire Shabbat, and an object whose designation changed on Shabbat is not muktze.

The Gemara raises a contradiction in Rava’s statements:

But Rava said to his attendant

(to his servant) on a Festival:

Roast for me

[roast for me]

the wing of a goose, 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 goose are fit for human consumption during the week, and now, when it was slaughtered on the Festival, its innards became prepared for an animal, because on a Festival it is not customary to eat innards, but only choice meat. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the innards are muktze, because at twilight they were still prepared for human consumption!