Shabbat 44a (מד.) — the Talmud in English

Since a person is panicked over his dead relative,

if you do not permit him

to rescue 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 that this will happen, it is prohibited to move him, so that he will not become odorous.

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

who may be moved and rescued from the fire.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not 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 a lamp and in a bowl

after the lamp has gone out—

is prohibited. And Rabbi Shimon

permits it.

Mishna:

Introduction to the dispute between the tannaim concerning designation

The laws of muktzeh may be divided into three categories:

a. The decree prohibiting moving [and likewise using or eating] items that are muktzeh by virtue of their substance, which people do not ordinarily use, such as wood and stones, and such as a dead person or an animal carcass.

Items that have a use were not included in this decree, even if using them is prohibited on Shabbat.

This decree was already in force in the time of King Solomon [as explained above, on 30b], and one of the midrashim states that King Solomon himself instituted it, together with the enactments concerning eruvin and washing the hands.

b. The decree instituted in the time of Nehemiah [which will be explained below, on 123b], enacted because of the laxity that had come to prevail in the observance of Shabbat. Therefore, it was initially made more stringent, prohibiting the moving even of utensils, except for eating utensils. Subsequently, they gradually permitted and then permitted again, until the decree remained only with regard to utensils that have no permitted use on Shabbat. The decree also remained prohibiting the moving of a utensil whose primary use is for a prohibited activity [although it also has a permitted use], except for the purpose of using it for a permitted activity with its body, or for using its place.

We do not find that this decree included a prohibition against eating or benefiting; plainly, it related only to moving!

By virtue of this decree, everything that was not permitted is included in the decree. Thus, anything that does not have the status of a “utensil”—is muktzeh, even if it has a permitted use on Shabbat.

c. The tannaim dispute, as will be explained before us, the designation by which a person removes a utensil or food from use, because of a prohibition, because of repulsiveness, or for other reasons: Does this give the utensil or food the status of muktzeh?

This designation relates, in addition to moving, also to eating and use. A person’s designation of an item as removed from eating and use renders the item set aside by virtue of his designation.

And we find [below, on 128a] that designation can be divided, such that Rav can rule that bland raw meat [that is not salted,

is prohibited to eat on Shabbat by the law of muktzeh,

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that bland raw meat is muktzeh. Conversely, Rav rules that

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

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

The dispute is expressed on three levels:

a. Which removal from use is considered “designation.”

b. To what extent one must take a person’s designation into account.

c. When, and under what circumstances, a person designates a utensil or food as set aside.

And so the Mishna here first teaches the statement of the first tanna:

One may move

on Shabbat a

lamp [

a utensil 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 suitable for additional uses besides lighting a lamp. Since it is new, it is not repulsive from burned oil and soot, which are present in an old lamp. Therefore, although it is a utensil whose primary use is for a prohibited activity, it is permitted to move it, since it also has permitted uses.

But one may not

move a

old lamp,

because it is muktzeh due to repulsiveness; and designation due to repulsiveness is sufficiently significant to impose upon the utensil a prohibition against moving it.

Rabbi Shimon says: All lamps,

even a repulsive old lamp,

may be moved,

because the repulsiveness of a utensil does not give it the status of muktzeh,

except for a lamp that is lit on Shabbat,

while it is burning, for then it is prohibited to move it, lest the lamp be extinguished.

This is how Rashi explains it [found below within his commentary on the Gemara, several lines later], in accordance with the Gemara’s initial assumption below, on 46b.

However, according to the conclusion, we say that Rabbi Shimon does not be concerned about extinguishing the flame, since he does not intend to extinguish it; and according to Rabbi Shimon, an act whose unintended consequence is prohibited is permitted even initially.

Rather, the reason for the prohibition is that while the lamp is burning, it serves as a base for the flame, which is muktzeh, and it is prohibited to move the lamp by virtue of its being a base for muktzeh.

Gemara:

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

because it is muktzeh due to repulsiveness,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says: All lamps

that were not lit on this Shabbat

may be moved,

since they do not become muktzeh due to their repulsiveness,

except for a lamp in which they lit on Shabbat,

which is prohibited to move even after it has gone out, because it became muktzeh due to the prohibition at the time it was burning, and its designation continues throughout the entire Shabbat.

Rabbi Shimon says:

No lamp is muktzeh

except for a lamp that is lit on Shabbat,

and only while it is burning!

And Rabbi Shimon adds:

When the fire has gone out

in the lamp [which contains enough oil to burn for several hours and is expected to go out during Shabbat]—

it is permitted to move it,

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

But

if one lit in a

cup, bowl, or lantern,

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

one may not move them

the cup, bowl, or lantern

from their place,

even after the fire has gone out, since they were not expected to go out on Shabbat, and it follows that he designated them for the entire Shabbat.

And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One may take

a person

from the extinguished lamp,

when it is flickering with its final flickers before going out completely, since taking the oil is not considered extinguishing.

And

likewise a person may take

from the dripping oil

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

Rabbi Shimon

that there is muktzeh

with regard to something fit for eating or use.

And he disagrees with him in one matter. For

Rabbi Shimon

his father held:

only if

it has gone out

the lamp—

yes,

only then may one take oil from it. But if

it has not gone out,

the lamp,

no,

one may not take oil from it, because even while it is flickering with its final flickers before going out, it is still considered a burning lamp, and the oil inside it is considered to be burning; one who takes oil from it is liable for extinguishing.

And

whereas

he,

Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon,

held: Even though it has not gone out,

it is permitted to take oil from it.

The Gemara now explains the statement in the latter clause of the beraita, assuming that it continues the words of Rabbi Shimon:

But a cup, bowl, or lantern—

one may not move them from their places.

What is different about these

that Rabbi Shimon said that one may not move them? But Rabbi Shimon does not hold that there is muktzeh with regard to something fit for use!?

Ulla said:

These are not the words of Rabbi Shimon! Rather,

the latter clause—

we have come to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that there is muktzeh.

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

a cup and bowl one may not move”? This wording implies that with regard to a lamp, it is permitted to move it after the fire has gone out. But Rabbi Yehuda prohibits moving even a lamp!?

Rather, Mar Zutra said: Actually,

Rabbi Shimon

said this.

And when

he permitted

Rabbi Shimon—

it was with regard to a small lamp, whose contents he had in mind,

since it was destined to go out during Shabbat and he did not designate the remaining oil as set aside.

But these,

the cup and bowl,

which are large,

containing a great deal of oil and not destined to go out during Shabbat, and consequently he did not have them in mind—

no,

Rabbi Shimon did not permit moving them.

And we refute this:

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

is prohibited, and Rabbi Shimon permits it!?

This proves that Rabbi Shimon permitted it even in a bowl, which contains a great deal of oil.