Shabbat 43b — the Talmud in English

It is understandable in the summer ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

when there are

then

beeswax

in the hive. But

in the rainy season, when there are not

then

beeswax —

what can be said?

And we answer:

It was necessary [to teach] that which was permitted to move the mat

only for the sake of those two

honeycombs

of

wax found in every hive, in which there are hollows of “receptacles” into which the bees express the honey. And they are fit for eating and are not muktze, and therefore it is permitted to move the mat for their sake.

of wax” found in every hive, which contain cavities serving as “receptacles” into which the bees deposit the honey. They are fit for human consumption and are not muktze, and therefore it is permitted to move the mat for their sake.

And we challenge:

But

those two honeycombs themselves also

are muktze,

because they are designated for the needs of the bees, and the bees themselves are muktze — [are they not]!?

And we answer: Here it is speaking

where he had considered them

before Shabbat for eating.

And we infer:

This

if

he had not considered them

before Shabbat for eating,

what [is the law]?

For it is

forbidden

to move the mat for their sake.

And we are astonished:

If so, that which he teaches

in the final clause,

“provided that he does not intend to trap” —

why was it necessary to make a distinction concerning trapping?

Let him make the distinction and teach it in that matter itself,

concerning his thought about eating the honeycombs, and let him say:

When is this statement applicable,

that it is permitted to move the mat —

when he had considered them

to eat the wax honeycombs.

But if he had not considered them —

it is forbidden!

And there is no need to make a distinction concerning the intention to trap.

And we answer:

This teaches us

through the distinction of the final clause with regard to trapping:

even though he had considered them

to eat them, so that they are then not muktze, nevertheless, the fact that it is permitted to spread the mat over the hive is —

provided that he does not intend to trap.

And we examine it:

Whose [opinion is this]?

Who is the tanna who taught the law of spreading a mat over a hive, and whom we established as speaking when he had considered eating the two honeycombs in it?

If it is Rabbi Shimon —

this [is difficult],

for he does not hold of muktze

in an object fit for human consumption; and why do I need that he had considered them for eating?

If it is Rabbi Yehuda,

then even

when he does not intend

to trap the bees —

what does that accomplish

to permit this?

But

according to Rabbi Yehuda’s position,

an unintentional act —

is forbidden!?

And we answer:

Actually, it is Rabbi Yehuda. And he must cover the hive in a manner in which the bees are not trapped.

who is the author. And he must cover the hive in a manner in which the bees are not trapped.

And

what does “provided that he does not intend to trap” mean?

This is what he is saying:

That he should not make it

the mat that he spreads

like a trap,

that he should not close it from all directions, for then, even if he does not intend to trap, it is forbidden on account of psik reisha.

Rather,

let him leave

that he should leave

for them

for the bees

an opening, so that they will not be trapped on their own.

Rav Ashi said: Does he teach “in the summer” and “in the rainy season”?

For

he teaches, “in the sun because of the sun, and in the rains because of the rains,”

with the tanna’s intention being

on the days of Nisan and on the days of Tishrei, when there are

then at times

sun and there are

then at times also

rains, and

always

there is

then

honey.

Rav Sheshet said to them: Go out

and go

and say to Rabbi Yitzhak: Rav Huna has already explained your teaching

in Babylonia, Rav Huna has already taught the matter that you said, that a vessel is moved only for the sake of an object that may be moved,

in Babylonia.

For Rav Huna said: A partition is made for a dead person —

for the sake of

a

living

person who requires this partition.

But a partition is not made for a dead person for the sake of a dead person,

as will be explained below. Since a vessel is moved only for the sake of an object that may be moved, and a dead person is muktze, for he may not be moved.

And we explain:

What is it?

For Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said, and likewise Shila Mari taught: A dead person lying in the sun,

and liable to putrefy,

two people come and sit beside him

on the ground.

And when

they become hot from

the ground

below —

this one brings a bed and sits on it, and that one brings a bed and sits on it.

And when

they become hot

from the sun

above —

they bring a mat and spread it over them

the mat above, while each one is sitting on his bed.

And after they spread the mat over themselves —

this one raises his bed

so that the mat will be spread over it,

and slips away and goes off, and that one raises his bed and slips away and goes off.

And a partition is found to have been made on its own [and see Rashi, who explains that specifically in this manner there is no prohibition of making a temporary tent].

See Rashi, who explains that specifically in this manner there is no prohibition of making a temporary tent].

It was stated: A dead person lying in the sun,

and one wishes to transfer him to a shaded place so that he will not putrefy:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: He turns him

the dead person

from bed to bed

until he brings him to a shaded place.

Rav Hanina bar Shelamya said in the name of Rav: He places a loaf or a child upon him, and moves him.

Это особое разрешение с хлебом или ребёнком уже разъяснялось выше, на листе 30а: по-видимому, в таком случае переносят не один предмет, отведённый от использования в Шабат, а вместе с разрешённым предметом].

And we explain:

Where there is a loaf or a child —

everyone agrees that it is permitted

with this special permission.

When they disagree —

where he does not have

a loaf or a child.

One master,

Rav Hanina, who permitted [moving him] only through a loaf or a child,

held

that

“handling from the side”

such as when he turns him from bed to bed, although this is not the usual manner of handling, nevertheless

is called handling,

and it is forbidden to do this.

And the other master,

Shmuel, who permitted [it],

held: handling from the side, in which he handles [the object] in an unusual manner,

is not called handling.

Shall we say that it is a dispute between tannaim,

since we learned in the Tosefta:

One does not rescue a dead person from a fire.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: I heard that one does rescue a dead person from a fire.

And we examine it:

What are the circumstances?

If there is a loaf or a child —

what is the reason of the first tanna

who did not permit it even with a child or a loaf?

If there is none —

what is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish

who permitted it?

Rather, is it not that they disagree concerning handling from the side;

for one master,

the first tanna, who prohibited,

held: Handling from the side —

is called handling.

And the other master,

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish, who permitted,

held: It is not called handling.

And we reject this:

No,

this is not what they disagreed about.

Rather, in fact,

everyone

holds that

handling from the side —

is called handling.

And this is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish,

who permitted moving [him]: