Shabbat 46a — the Talmud in English

But what about the bridegrooms’ canopy, for which a person designates a place for himself, and Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Hiyya: The bridegrooms’ canopy ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

is permitted to spread it, and it is permitted to dismantle it on Shabbat,

since, because it does not have a roof of a handbreadth, there is no prohibition of building and dismantling in it?!

Rather, Abaye said:

The prohibition concerning moving the lamp that was stated is

with a

lamp

of segments

[made of separate sections], concerning which there is concern lest it come apart, and he come to reassemble it and thereby repair a utensil.

And we challenge this:

If so,

that the concern is repairing a utensil— -

what is the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, who permits it?

And we answer:

What is meant by “segments”?

Something resembling segments, in which there are

in the lamp

incisions,

cuts all around that create the impression as though the lamp were made of segments upon segments.

Therefore:

A lamp that has

actual segments

themselves—

whether large or small, it is prohibited to move it.

A

large lamp also,

if it is a lamp

in which there are incisions—

it is prohibited to move it,

as a decree on account of a large lamp that is

made of

segments.

Because those who see the cuts will think that it is one of segments, since the usual way is to make a large lamp from segments, and they will come to move a lamp made of actual segments.

Where Rabbi Yohanan

and Reish Lakish

disagree is with regard to a small lamp in which there are incisions,

and everyone knows that they are cuts and not segments.

One master,

Rabbi Yohanan,

holds that we decree

on account of segments.

And one master,

Reish Lakish,

holds that we do not decree.

The Gemara now returns to discuss Rabbi Yohanan’s statement brought on the previous page, that he holds that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

And did Rabbi Yohanan say this,

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda?

But Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha follows an unattributed Mishna.

And we learned

[as was explained on page 44b]:

Its wheel,

the wheel of the chest,

when it is removable—

it is not considered connected to it, it is not measured with it, it does not protect together with it in a tent containing a corpse, and one may not drag it on Shabbat when there are coins upon it.

And it may be inferred from here:

Precisely

if

there are not upon it,

upon the wheel of the chest,

coins

now, when one comes to move it on Shabbat itself—

it is permitted

to move the wheel,

even though there had been upon it

coins

during twilight!

For we do not say: Since it was set aside during twilight, it was set aside for the entire day. And it is proven according to Rabbi Yohanan that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, for this is how Rabbi formulated the unattributed Mishna.

Rabbi Zeira said: Let our Mishna be,

let us establish our Mishna as referring to a case

where there were no coins upon it throughout the entire twilight,

so that it was not set aside then, in order

not to break Rabbi Yohanan’s statement.

And this is how we infer from it: When is it necessary that there be coins upon it on Shabbat itself, when one comes to move it, in order to prohibit moving it? When there were no coins upon it during twilight. But if there were coins upon it during twilight, it is prohibited to move it throughout the entire day, even when the coins have been removed from it, and this is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Once Rabbi went to Diospra, and ruled concerning a lamp in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to a lamp.

And this is explained as follows:

It was raised as a question before them:

Did Rabbi issue one ruling or two?

Was it that he

ruled

one ruling

concerning a lamp,

whose law is

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to an extinguished lamp—and

he ruled

only leniently,

that is, that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon concerning muktze?

Or perhaps

he issued two rulings:

The first: He

ruled concerning a lamp

that has incisions [cuts]

stringently,

because we decree with regard to it on account of a lamp made of segments.

And

the second ruling was that the halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to a lamp—

leniently?

And we conclude:

teyku.

The Gemara now brings several opinions and practices of amoraim concerning moving a lamp:

Rav Malkia happened to come to the house of Rabbi Shemai, and moved

there

a lamp,

an extinguished lamp.

And Rabbi Shemai became upset.

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean happened to come to the place

he came to the place

of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina.

And he

moved

there

a lamp,

an extinguished lamp.

And Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina became upset.

When Rabbi Abbahu happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

who ruled in accordance with Rabbi Shimon—

he would move a lamp,

whereas

when he happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yohanan,

who ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda—

he would not move a lamp.

And we examine this:

What is your reasoning: If he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda—

let him act in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda; if he holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon—

let him act in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

And we answer:

In truth,

Rabbi Abbahu

holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

leniently.

And it was because of the honor of Rabbi Yohanan that he did not act

as he held was permitted, but was stringent upon himself.

Rav Yehuda said: An oil lamp

an oil lamp after it was extinguished—

it is permitted to move it,

for it is not repulsive. And the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

But a lamp

of naphtha,

made of naphtha—

it is prohibited to move it

even according to Rabbi Shimon, because it is repulsive and fit for nothing except lighting with it.

Rabbah and Rav Yosef both say:

A lamp

of naphtha is also permitted to move it.

Since it is fit for a use—to cover a utensil with it.

Rav Avya happened to come to the house of Rava.

His feet were soiled

his feet were dirty

with mud,

in the mud,

he sat upon the bed

he sat on the bed

before Rava.

Rava became upset

because he had dirtied the bed,

he sought to embarrass him,

by embarrassing him with a matter of halakha.

He said to him,

Rava to Rav Avya:

What is the reason that Rabbah and Rav Yosef both say: A naphtha lamp is also permitted to move it?

He said to him: Since it is fit to cover a utensil with it,

since it is fit to cover a utensil with it.

Rava said to him:

If so, all pebbles

of stones

in the courtyard

also

are movable, since they are fit to cover a utensil with them?!

He said to him: This one,

the naphtha lamp—

has the status of a utensil upon it.

But

these,

the pebbles in the courtyard—

do not have the status of a utensil upon them.