Shabbat 43b (מג:) — the Talmud in English

That is well in the summer

when there is

then

honey

in the hive. But

in the rainy season, when there is no

then

honey—

what can be said?

And we answer:

It was necessary—

the permission to move the mat applies

only for the

purpose of

those two “cakes

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 this:

But

those two cakes themselves

are muktze,

because they are designated for the bees’ use, and the bees themselves are muktze!?

And we answer: Here we are dealing with a case

where he had considered them

before Shabbat, in order to eat them.

And we infer:

This

if

he had not considered them

before Shabbat for eating,

what

then? Surely it is

forbidden

to move the mat for their sake.

And we wonder:

If so, concerning that which he teaches

in the latter clause,

“provided that he does not intend to trap

”—why was it necessary to make a distinction with regard to trapping?

Let him make the distinction within that very matter

of his intention regarding eating the cakes, and let him say:

When does this apply

—that it is permitted to move the mat?

When he had considered them

in order to eat the wax cakes.

But if he had not considered them—

it is forbidden!

There would be no need to make a distinction with regard to the intention to trap.

And we answer:

This teaches us

through the distinction in the latter clause concerning trapping:

Even though he had considered them

in order to eat them, so that they are not muktze, nevertheless, the permission to spread the mat over the hive is subject to the condition—

“provided that he does not intend to trap.”

We analyze this:

Who is the author?

Who is the tanna who taught the law concerning spreading a mat over a hive, which we established as referring to a case where he had considered eating the two cakes within it?

If it is Rabbi Shimon—

does he not

hold that there is no muktze

with regard to an item fit for human consumption? If so, why do I need him to have considered them for eating?

If it is Rabbi Yehuda,

then even

when he does not intend

to trap the bees,

what is there

to permit this?

But

according to Rabbi Yehuda’s view,

an unintentional act—

is forbidden!?

And we answer:

Actually, it is Rabbi Yehuda

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?

That he should not make it

the mat that he spreads

into a trap,

so that he does not close it on all sides, because then, even if he does not intend to trap them, it is forbidden on account of pesik reishe.

Rather,

he should leave

a

space

for the bees,

so that they will not be trapped automatically.

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

”? Surely

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

meaning that the tanna intended

the days of Nisan and the days of Tishrei, when there is

at times

sun and there is

at times also

rain, and

there is always

there

then

honey.

Rav Sheshet said to them: Go out

and

tell Rabbi Yitzḥak: Rav Huna has already interpreted your teaching

in Babylonia: Rav Huna already taught the matter that you stated, that a utensil may be moved only for the sake of an item that may itself be moved,

in Babylonia.

As Rav Huna said: A partition may be made for a corpse—

for the sake of

a

living

person who requires this partition.

But a partition may not be made for a corpse for the sake of a corpse,

as will be explained below. Since a utensil may be moved only for the sake of an item that may itself be moved, and a corpse is muktze, it may not be moved.

And we explain:

What is it?

As Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said, and similarly Sheila Mari taught: When a corpse is lying in the sun,

and liable to become foul,

two people come and sit beside it

on the ground.

And once

they become hot from

the ground

below—

one brings a bed and sits upon it, and the other brings a bed and sits upon it.

And once

they become hot

from the sun

above—

they bring a mat and spread it over them

from above, while each of them is sitting on his bed.

And after they have spread the mat over themselves,

one raises his bed

so that the mat will remain spread over it,

and slips away and goes, and the other raises his bed and slips away and goes.

And the partition is thereby made on its own [

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

It was stated: When a corpse is lying in the sun,

and one wishes to move it to a shaded place so that it will not become foul:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: He turns it over

the corpse

from bed to bed

until he brings it to a shaded place.

Rav Ḥanina bar Shelamya said in the name of Rav: He places a loaf or a child upon it, and moves it. [This special permission involving a loaf or a child was explained above, on page 30b: apparently, he is not moving muktze alone, but together with a permitted item].

And we explain:

Where there is a loaf or a child—

everyone agrees that it is permitted

through this special permission.

Where they disagree is

where he does not have

a loaf or a child.

One Master,

Rav Ḥanina, who permitted it only by means of a loaf or a child,

held that

“

moving from the side

”—as when he turns it over from one bed to another, although this is not the ordinary manner of moving—

is considered moving,

and it is forbidden to do so.

And the other Master,

Shmuel, who permitted it,

held that moving from the side, meaning moving something in an uncustomary manner,

is not considered moving.

Let us say that this is subject to a dispute between tannaim,

as we learned in a tosefta:

One may not rescue a corpse from a fire.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish said: I heard that one may rescue a corpse from a fire.

We analyze this:

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 with regard to moving from the side;

as one Master,

the first tanna, who prohibited it,

held: Moving from the side—

is considered moving.

And the other Master,

Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish, who permitted it,

held: It is not considered moving.

And we reject this:

No,

that is not the basis of their dispute.

Rather, in fact,

everyone

holds that

moving from the side—

is considered moving.

And this is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish,

who permitted moving it: