Shabbat 46a (מו.) — the Talmud in English

But what of a bridegroom’s canopy, where a person designates a fixed place for it, and Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: A bridegroom’s canopy

may be spread, and may be dismantled on Shabbat,

since, because it does not have a roof of a handbreadth, spreading and dismantling it do not involve the prohibitions of building and demolishing!?

Rather, Abaye said:

The prohibition against moving the menorah that was mentioned is referring to

a

menorah

composed of sections

[made of separate parts], as there is concern that it might come apart, and one might come to reassemble it and thereby repair a vessel.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if the concern is that one might repair a vessel— -

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

And we answer:

What is meant by “sections”—

something resembling sections, in which there are

in the menorah

incisions,

cuts all around that give the impression that the menorah is made of separate sections.

Therefore:

A menorah that contains actual

sections

—

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

A

large menorah as well,

if it is a menorah

that has incisions,

it is prohibited to move it,

as a decree on account of a large menorah that is

made of

sections.

Since those who see the incisions may think that it is composed of sections—for the usual way of making a large menorah is from sections—and they may come to move a menorah that is actually composed of sections.

The dispute

between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish is

with regard to a small one that has incisions,

as everyone knows that these are incisions and not actual sections.

One Master,

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

holds that we issue a decree

on account of actual sections.

And one Master,

Reish Lakish,

holds that we do not issue such a decree.

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

And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say this,

that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda?

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

And we learned

[as explained on page 44b]:

Its carriage,

the wheel of the chest,

when it can be detached—

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

And one should infer from here:

This

means that

if there are no

coins upon the wheel of the chest

now,

when one comes to move it on Shabbat itself—

it is permitted

to move the carriage,

even though there had been

coins upon it

during twilight!

For we do not say: Since it was set aside as muktzeh during twilight, it is set aside as muktzeh for the entire day. And this proves, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught this anonymously in the Mishna.

Rabbi Zeira said: Let us establish our Mishna

as referring to a case

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

so that it had not been set aside as muktzeh then,

in order not to refute Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement.

And this is how we should infer from it: When is it necessary for coins to be upon it on Shabbat itself, when one comes to move it, in order to prohibit moving it? It is 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 once the coins have been removed from it, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

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

And the Gemara explains:

It was raised as a dilemma before them:

Did Rabbi issue one ruling or two?

Did he

rule

with one ruling

concerning the menorah,

the law of which is

like Rabbi Shimon concerning an extinguished lamp—and

only

only as a leniency did he rule, meaning that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon with regard to muktzeh?

meaning that the law follows Rabbi Shimon concerning items set aside as unusable?

Or perhaps

he issued two rulings:

The first: He

ruled concerning a menorah

that has incisions [cuts]

prohibiting it, because a decree was issued concerning it on account of a menorah composed of sections.

because we issue a decree concerning it due to a lamp made of actual sections.

And

the second ruling was that the halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon concerning an extinguished lamp—

as a leniency?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

The Gemara now cites several statements and practices of amoraim concerning moving a lamp:

Rav Malkiyya happened to come to the house of Rabbi Shemaya, and he moved

there

a lamp,

an extinguished lamp.

And Rabbi Shemaya became upset.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili happened to come to the place

of

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.

And he

moved

there

a lamp,

an extinguished lamp.

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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;

but

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

who ruled in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda—

he would not move a lamp.

And we contemplate this:

Whichever way you look at it: 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:

Actually,

Rabbi Abbahu

held in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

to be lenient.

It was only out of respect for Rabbi Yoḥanan that he did not act

as he held was permitted; rather, he imposed stringency upon himself.

Rav Yehuda said: An oil lamp

is a lamp of oil after it has been extinguished—

it is permitted to move it,

as 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 is fit for nothing except lighting with it.

Rabba and Rav Yosef both say:

A lamp

of naphtha is also permitted to be moved.

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

Rav Avya happened to come to Rava’s house.

His feet were soiled

by

mud,

with mud, and he

and he sat on the bed

and sat on the bed

before Rava.

Rava became upset

because he had soiled the bed,

and sought to embarrass him

by challenging him with a matter of halakha.

He said to him,

Rava said to Rav Avya:

What is the reason that Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: A naphtha lamp is also permitted to be moved?

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

as it can be used to cover a vessel.

Rava said to him:

If that is so, all stones

of the courtyard

in a courtyard

should also be

permitted to be moved, since they are fit to cover a vessel with them!?

He said to him: This—

the naphtha lamp—

has the status of a vessel.

But

these

stones in the courtyard—

do not have the status of a vessel.