Shabbat 45b (מה:) — the Talmud in English

Date clusters—

dates that were picked before completing their ripening and placed in baskets made from lulav leaves so that they would ripen fully—

according to Rabbi Shimon—

what is the ruling?

Are they also considered muktzeh, since one actively set them aside by placing them in baskets for the purpose of completing their ripening?

He said to him: According to Rabbi Shimon, there is no muktzeh other than dried figs and raisins alone,

because, in addition to having been actively set aside, they also spoil and are unfit for eating.

The Gemara inferred from this that Rabbi Shimon, the son of Rabbi, asked Rabbi what Rabbi Shimon held concerning date clusters because Rabbi holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, that there is no muktzeh with regard to an item that is fit for use.

And we challenged this:

And

because

does Rabbi not accept the principle of muktzeh?

But we learned in the Mishna: One may neither give water to nor slaughter

on a Festival

the

animals

that live in the wilderness,

because he had taken his mind off slaughtering them at that time [the prohibited watering is watering for the purpose of skinning the animal, since it is easier to skin an animal that drank water before slaughter

?] But one may give water to and slaughter

the

“domesticated”

animals that are designated for slaughter.

And it was taught in a beraita: Which are “wilderness animals

”?

Any that go out

to graze in the wilderness

on Passover and return with the first rains,

during the rainy season in the month of Heshvan.

Which are

“domesticated

” animals?

Any that go out and graze

every day

outside the Shabbat limit, and return

toward evening

and spend the night within the limit.

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

And these are wilderness animals—

any that graze in the wilderness and do not enter a settlement, neither during the summer nor during the rainy season.

This proves that Rabbi does accept the principle of muktzeh with regard to wilderness animals.

And we answered:

Alternatively: These too resemble dried figs and raisins.

For in addition to having been actively set aside, there is also the effort required to go and bring them, which further reinforces their being set aside.

Alternatively,

only

did he say this according to Rabbi Shimon’s position,

asking what Rabbi Shimon would hold concerning date clusters. But

as for him,

Rabbi himself,

he does not hold

in accordance with him.

And alternatively:

With regard to the wilderness and domesticated animals,

he said this according to the position of the Rabbis,

and this is what he meant:

According to my position—

I do not accept muktzeh at all.

But

according to your position,

that you do accept muktzeh—

at least concede to me that when they go out on Passover and return with the first rains, they are domesticated animals,

and they are not muktzeh.

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

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

the members of the academy

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

And we objected:

Did Rabbi Yohanan really say this?

But a certain man asked him,

who was called

“Saver Kroyya

” [after the name of his place].

And some say “Saroyya,” Rabbi Yohanan: A hen’s nest

intended solely for the hen, which is muktzeh—

what is the ruling concerning moving it on Shabbat?

He said to him: Is it made

for any other use

except

[other than]

for hens?

And since its sole purpose is for something prohibited because of muktzeh, it too is muktzeh.

It is apparent, then, that Rabbi Yohanan holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who accepts the principle of muktzeh, for the nest is a utensil, and according to Rabbi Shimon a utensil is not muktzeh.

And we answered:

Here, with what are we dealing?

With a dead chick inside it,

which is muktzeh even according to Rabbi Shimon.

And we objected:

That works according to the Master, bar Ameimar, in the name

of Rava,

who said: Rabbi Shimon agreed that animals that died are prohibited,

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

But according to the Master, the son of Rav Yosef, in the name

of Rava, who said: Rabbi Shimon disagreed even with regard to animals that died, ruling that they are permitted,

because one can feed them to dogs,

what can be said?

And we answered:

Here, with what are we dealing?

With a

hen’s nest containing

an egg

that was laid on Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon agrees with regard to nolad, an item that came into existence on Shabbat, that it is muktzeh.

And we objected:

But Rav Naḥman said: One who accepts the principle of muktzeh

also accepts

as well

the principle of nolad,

but one who

does not accept the principle of muktzeh

does not accept

it

with regard to nolad as well!?

And we answered: Here we are dealing

with an egg containing a chick.

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 concerns an item that is fit for use.

When Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yosef, came, he said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Rav Yosef said: This is what Rabba bar bar Hanna said that Rabbi Yohanan said: “They said

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

but he himself does not hold accordingly.

This is as Rav Yitzḥak said: Rabbi Yohanan ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

Why did you need to rely on Rav Yitzḥak’s statement in order to say that Rabbi Yohanan rules in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda?

And

because

you,

on the basis of your own reasoning,

would not have concluded that Rabbi Yohanan holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda

and accepts his position?

This is: Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Asi happened to come to the house of Rabbi Abba of Ḥeifa, and a lamp fell onto Rabbi Asi’s cloak, but he did not move it.

And Abaye inferred:

What is the reason

that Rabbi Asi did not move the lamp that had fallen onto him?

Is it not because Rabbi Asi was a disciple of Rabbi Yohanan, and Rabbi Yohanan held in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who accepts the principle of muktzeh!

He said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

Are you speaking of a lamp?

A lamp is different!

Had I not had Rav Yitzḥak’s statement, I would not have known that Rabbi Yohanan had ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

For Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Asi said:

Reish Lakish issued a ruling in Sidon: A lamp

that is light

and can be carried with one hand—

it is permitted to move it.

But a heavy lamp that can be carried

with both hands—

it is prohibited to move it,

because it is assigned a permanent place and is not ordinarily moved.

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

practice of permitting its movement

except with regard to a lamp, in accordance with Rabbi Shimon; but a candelabrum, whether it can be carried with one hand or whether it can be carried with both hands—

it is prohibited to move it.

And what is the reason?

Rabba and Rav Yosef both said: Since

a person assigns it a permanent place.

It would have seemed reasonable to me to say that Rabbi Yohanan ruled in accordance with Rabbi Shimon in every case.

But once Rav Yitzḥak came and said that Rabbi Yohanan had ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, we understood that with regard to every case of muktzeh because of a prohibited use, he ruled that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda; only with regard to muktzeh because of repulsiveness did he not rule in accordance with him, but rather in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Accordingly, Rabbi Yohanan permitted moving an old earthenware lamp even though it was repulsive.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef:

How could one suggest that assigning a permanent place to an object renders it prohibited to move on Shabbat?