Shabbat 44a — the Talmud in English

Since a person is distraught over his dead person ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

if you do not permit him

to save him from the fire—

he will come to extinguish

the fire. But when the dead person is lying in the sun, when there is no concern for this, it is forbidden to move him, so that he will not become malodorous.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Sheila said that Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Lakish regarding a dead person

that one moves him and saves him from the fire.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not derive benefit from it

from the oil that drips from the lamp on Shabbat

because it is not prepared.

The Sages taught: The remaining oil in the lamp and in the bowl

after the lamp has gone out—

is forbidden. And Rabbi Shimon

permits.

Mishna:

Introduction to the dispute of the tannaim concerning setting aside.

The matters of muktze can be divided into three:

A. The decree not to move [and likewise not to use and not to eat] things that are muktze because of their bodies, which people are not accustomed to use, such as wood and stones, and such as a dead person or an animal carcass.

Things that have a use were not included in this decree, even if their use is forbidden on Shabbat.

This decree already existed in the time of King Solomon [as explained above, on page 30b], and in one of the midrashim it is said that King Solomon himself instituted it, together with the institution of eruvin and the washing of hands.

B. The decree in the time of Nehemiah [which will be explained below, on page 123b], which was instituted as a result of the leniencies that people practiced in observing Shabbat. Therefore, they were stringent in it, not to move even vessels except for eating vessels. Afterwards, gradually, they permitted and again permitted, until the decree remained only concerning vessels that have no permitted use on Shabbat, and the decree also remained not to move a vessel whose labor is for a prohibition [and which also has a permitted use] except for the purpose of a permitted use with its body, or for the purpose of its place.

We do not find that eating or deriving benefit was included in this decree as well; plainly, it referred only to moving!

By force of this decree, everything that was not permitted is included in the decree. Thus, anything over which there is no “status of a vessel”—it is muktze, even if it has a permitted use on Shabbat.

C. The tannaim disagreed, as will be explained before us, concerning an object that a person sets aside by removing a vessel or food from use, because of a prohibition or because of disgust or for other reasons: does this give the vessel or the food the status of muktze?

This setting aside relates, in addition to moving, also to eating and use. For a person’s setting something aside from eating and use makes the object set aside by virtue of his setting it aside.

And we find [below, on page 128a] that it is possible to divide the setting aside, so that Rav can rule that raw, unseasoned meat [that is not salted],

is forbidden to eat on Shabbat by the law of muktze,

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that raw, unseasoned meat is muktze. On the other hand, Rav rules that

it is permitted to move and is not muktze with regard to moving,

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who holds that raw, unseasoned meat is not muktze at all.

The dispute is on three levels:

A. What kind of removal from use is considered “setting aside.”

B. To what extent one must take his setting aside into consideration.

C. When, and under what circumstances, a person sets aside a vessel or food.

And so the Mishna here first teaches the words of the First Tanna:

One moves

on Shabbat

a lamp [

a vessel into which oil is poured, and in which a wick is lit]

new,

which has never had a fire lit in it, since it is now fit for additional uses besides lighting the lamp. And since it is new, it is not repulsive from burned oil and from the soot of the lighting that exist in an old lamp. Therefore, although it is a vessel whose labor is for a prohibition, it is permitted to move it, since it also has permitted uses.

But not

move

an old

lamp, because it is muktze because of disgust; and setting aside because of disgust is sufficiently significant to impose upon the vessel a prohibition against moving it.

Rabbi Shimon says: All lamps

even a repulsive old lamp

may be moved,

because the repulsiveness of the vessel does not give it the status of muktze,

except for a lamp burning on Shabbat,

while it is burning, for then it is forbidden to move it because of concern that perhaps the lamp will be extinguished.

So Rashi explains [who is found below within the commentary on the Gemara, several lines from now], according to the initial assumption of the Gemara below, on page 46b.

But according to the conclusion, we say that Rabbi Shimon has no concern for extinguishing, since he does not intend to extinguish, and according to Rabbi Shimon, an unintended act is permitted from the outset.

Rather, the reason for the prohibition is that while the lamp is burning, it is a base for the flame, which is muktze, and it is forbidden to move it by the law of a base for muktze.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: One moves a new lamp, but not an old one,

because it is muktze because of disgust,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says: All lamps

that they did not light with on Shabbat

may be moved,

for they do not become muktze because of their repulsiveness,

except for a lamp with which they lit on Shabbat,

which is forbidden to move even after it goes out, since it became muktze because of a prohibition when it was burning, and its setting aside continues for the entire Shabbat.

Rabbi Shimon says:

There is no lamp that is muktze

except for a lamp burning on Shabbat,

and only at the time of its burning!

And Rabbi Shimon adds:

If it went out,

the fire in the lamp [which contains oil for several hours and is destined to go out during Shabbat]—

it is permitted to move it,

the lamp, since he did not set it aside, knowing that it is destined to go out on Shabbat.

But

if he lit in a

cup, bowl, or lantern,

which contain an amount of oil sufficient to burn throughout the entire Shabbat, and the fire went out in the middle of Shabbat—

he may not move

the cup, the bowl, or the lantern

from their place,

even after the fire went out, since they are not destined to go out on Shabbat, and it is found that he set them aside for the entire Shabbat.

And Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon says: A person may take

some oil

from a lamp that is going out,

when it is flickering its final flickers before it goes out completely, for then taking the oil is not considered extinguishing.

And

likewise a person may take

from the oil that drips

from the lamp,

even while the lamp is burning.

Abaye said: Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon agrees with

Rabbi Shimon

his father in one matter, and disagrees with him in one matter.

He agrees with his father in one matter—

he does not hold

that Rabbi Shimon has

[the concept of] muktze

concerning an object fit for eating or use.

And he disagrees with him in one matter. For

Rabbi Shimon

his father held:

only if

it went out

the lamp—

yes,

only then is it permitted to take oil from it. But if

it did not go out,

the lamp—

no,

he may not take oil from it, because even while it is flickering its final flickers before its extinguishing, it is still considered a burning lamp, and the oil inside it is considered to be burning, and one who takes from it is liable on account of extinguishing.

And

whereas

he

Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon

held: Even though it did not go out,

it is permitted to take oil from it.

And now the Gemara explains the words of the beraita in its latter clause, on the assumption that they are a continuation of the words of Rabbi Shimon:

But a cup, a bowl, and a lantern—

he may not move them from their place.

What is different about these

that Rabbi Shimon said that he may not move them, when Rabbi Shimon does not hold of muktze concerning an object that is fit? !

Ulla said:

These are not the words of Rabbi Shimon! Rather,

the latter clause—

we have come to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds of muktze.

Mar Zutra raised an objection to this: If so, what is the meaning of “But

a cup and a bowl he may not move them”? For this wording implies that with a lamp it is permitted to move it after the fire has gone out. But Rabbi Yehuda forbids this even with a lamp!

Rather, Mar Zutra said: Actually—

Rabbi Shimon

said this.

And when [

he permitted]

Rabbi Shimon—

it is with a small lamp, whose mind is upon it,

that it will go out on Shabbat, and he does not set aside the remaining oil.

But these,

the cup and the bowl,

which are abundant,

which contain much oil and are not destined to go out on Shabbat, and consequently his mind is not upon them—

not

did Rabbi Shimon permit him to move them.

And we refute:

But it was taught: The remaining oil in the lamp and in the bowl—

is forbidden, and Rabbi Shimon permits! ?

And it is proven that Rabbi Shimon permitted even in a bowl, which contains much oil.