Shabbat 45b — the Talmud in English

Date clusters,

which are dates that were picked before the completion of their ripening and are placed inside baskets made from lulav leaves so that they should ripen completely,

according to Rabbi Shimon—

what is [the law]?

Are they also considered muktzeh, since he actively rejected them by placing them in baskets for the purpose of their final ripening?

He said to him: There is no muktzeh according to Rabbi Shimon except dried figs and raisins alone,

for, in addition to the fact that he actively rejected them, they also spoil and are not fit for eating.

And the Gemara inferred from this that Rabbi Shimon, the son of Rabbi, asked Rabbi what Rabbi Shimon holds concerning date clusters, because Rabbi holds like Rabbi Shimon, that there is no muktzeh concerning an item that is fit.

And we objected:

A

re

therefore Rabbi does not hold of muktzeh?

But we learned: One may not give water to or slaughter

on a Festival

the

animals

that are “wild,”

for he diverted his attention from slaughtering them now [the prohibited giving of water is giving water for the purpose of skinning the animal, because it is easier to skin an animal that drank water before slaughter].

But one may give water to and slaughter

the

“domesticated”

animals that stand ready for slaughter.

And it was taught in a beraita: These are the “wild”

”?

ones—

all that go out

to pasture in the open fields on Passover and enter at the rainy season,

during the rains, in the month of Cheshvan.

These are

the “domesticated”

” animals?

ones—

all that go out and graze

outside the Shabbat boundary, and come

toward evening

and spend the night within the boundary.

Rabbi says: Both these and those are “domesticated” ones.

And these are the wild ones—

all that graze in the open fields and do not enter a settled area, neither in the summer days nor in the rainy days.

And it is proven that Rabbi does hold of muktzeh concerning wild animals.

And we answered:

If you wish, say: These too resemble dried figs and raisins.

For, in addition to the fact that he actively rejected them, there is effort involved in going and bringing them, which adds an element to their being set aside.

And if you wish, say:

only

he said it to him according to the view of Rabbi Shimon,

[asking] how he would hold concerning date clusters. But

as for him,

Rabbi himself,

he does not hold

like him.

And if you wish, say:

Concerning the matter of the wild and domesticated animals,

he said it to them according to the view of the Rabbis:

and this is what he said:

As for me—

I do not hold of muktzeh at all.

But

as for you,

who do hold of muktzeh—

at least concede to me that where they go out on Passover and enter at the rainy season, they are domesticated animals,

and they are not muktzeh.

And the Rabbis said to him: No, they are wild animals.

Rabba bar bar Chana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They said

the members of the academy that

the halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

And we refuted this:

And did Rabbi Yohanan say this?

But that certain man asked him,

who was called

“Savar Kroyya”

[after his place].

And some say “Saroyya,” [who asked] Rabbi Yohanan: A hen’s nest

intended only for the needs of the hen, which is muktzeh—

what is [the law] regarding moving it on Shabbat?

He said to him: Is it made

that nest for any other use

except

[apart from]

for hens?

And since its entire designation is for something prohibited on account of muktzeh, it too is muktzeh.

It is apparent that Rabbi Yohanan holds like Rabbi Yehuda, who holds of muktzeh, for the nest is a utensil, and according to Rabbi Shimon a utensil is not muktzeh.

And we answered:

With what are we dealing here?—

Where it contains a dead chick,

on Shabbat, which is muktzeh even according to Rabbi Shimon.

And we refuted this:

This works according to this master, Bar Amiemar, in the name

of Rava,

who said: Rabbi Shimon agreed concerning living creatures that died, that they are prohibited,

and only concerning an animal that had been dangerously ill on the eve of Shabbat, and he had it in mind that if it died on Shabbat he would feed it to dogs, did Rabbi Shimon hold that it is not muktzeh.

But according to this master, the son of Rav Yosef, in the name

of Rava, who said: Rabbi Shimon disputed even concerning living creatures that died, that they are permitted,

because he can feed them to dogs,

what is there to say?

And we answered:

With what are we dealing here?—

Where it contains

in the hen’s nest

an egg

that was born on Shabbat. And Rabbi Shimon agrees concerning muktzeh of “something newly created.”

And we refuted this:

But did Rav Naḥman not say: One who holds of muktzeh

holds

also

of something newly created,

but one who

does not hold of muktzeh

does not hold

also

of something newly created!?

And we answered: Here it is discussing

where it contains an egg with a chick.

For a dog cannot eat it because of its shell, and since it is fit for nothing, Rabbi Shimon agrees that it is muktzeh, for his entire dispute is concerning an item that is fit.

When Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Yosef said: This is what Rabba bar bar Chana said that Rabbi Yohanan said: “They said,” the halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon. “They said

” that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. “They said ”

but he himself does not hold so.”

And this is as Rav Yitzḥak said, that Rabbi Yohanan ruled that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

Why did you need to rely on the words of Rav Yitzḥak in order to say that Rabbi Yohanan rules that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda?

A

re

you,

on the basis of your own reasoning,

not able to conclude that Rabbi Yohanan holds according to Rabbi Yehuda

[without the additional source]?

Now Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Asi happened to come to the house of Rabbi Abba of Haifa, and a lamp fell onto Rabbi Asi’s cloak, and he did not move it.

And Abaye inferred:

What is the reason

that Rav Asi did not move the lamp that fell upon him?

Is it not because Rabbi Asi was a student of Rabbi Yohanan, and Rabbi Yohanan holds according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds of muktzeh!

He said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

Are you speaking of a lamp?

A lamp is different!

And had I not had the words of Rav Yitzḥak, I would not have known that Rabbi Yohanan decided that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

For Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Asi said:

Resh Lakish ruled in Sidon: A lamp

that is light,

which can be moved with one hand—

it is permitted to move it.

But a heavy lamp, which can be moved

with both his hands—

it is prohibited to move it,

since a fixed place is assigned to it, and it is not the practice to move it.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: As for us, we have no

practice of permitting moving

except in the case of a lamp, according to Rabbi Shimon; but a lampstand, whether it can be moved with one hand or whether it can be moved with both his hands—

it is prohibited to move it.

And what is the reason?

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: Since

a person assigns a fixed place to it.

And it would have seemed reasonable to me to say that Rabbi Yohanan ruled according to Rabbi Shimon in every place.

But once Rav Yitzḥak came and said that Rabbi Yohanan decided that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda, we knew that concerning every muktzeh on account of prohibition he decided that the halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda, and only concerning muktzeh on account of repulsiveness does he not rule like him, but like Rabbi Shimon.

And therefore Rabbi Yohanan permitted moving an old earthenware lamp, even though it is repulsive.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

How is there room to say that assigning a fixed place to an object makes it prohibited to move it on Shabbat?