Previous Folio / Shabbath Contents / Tractate List

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 45a

Logic too avers that Rab agrees with R. Judah. For Rab said: A lamp may be placed on a palm tree for the Sabbath,1  but not on a Festival.2  Now, it is well if you admit that Rab holds as R. Judah: hence he draws a distinction between the Sabbath and Festivals.3  But if you say that he holds as R. Simeon, what is the difference between the Sabbath and Festivals?4

But does Rab hold as R. Judah? Surely Rab was asked: Is it permitted to move the Hanukkah lamp5  on account of the Guebres on the Sabbath?6  and he answered them, It is well.7 — A time of emergency is different. For R. Kahana and R. Ashi asked Rab: Is that the law? whereat he answered them, R. Simeon is sufficient to be relied upon in an emergency.

Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: What of wheat sown in the earth or eggs under a fowl?8  When does R. Simeon reflect [the prohibition of] mukzeh? Where one has not rejected it [an object] with his [own] hands; but where one rejects it with his own hands,9  he accepts [the interdict of] mukzeh: or perhaps there is no difference? — He answered him: R. Simeon accepts mukzeh only in respect of the oil in the [Sabbath] lamp while it is burning: since it was set apart for its precept,10  and set apart on account of its prohibition.11  But does he not [accept it where] it [only] was set apart for its precept?12  Surely it was taught: If one roofs it [the booth] in accordance with its requirements, beautifies it with hangings and sheets, and suspends therein nuts, peaches, almonds, pomegranates, grape clusters, garlands of ears of corn, wines, oil, and flours, he may not use them until the conclusion of the last Festival day of the Feast; yet if he stipulates concerning them, it is all according to his stipulation.13  And how do you know that this is R. Simeon's view? Because R. Hiyya b. Joseph recited before R. Johanan: Wood must not be taken from a hut on a Festival,14  save from what is near it;15  but R. Simeon permits it.16  Yet both agree in respect to the sukkah of the Festival17  that it is forbidden on the Festival;18  yet if he [the owner) stipulated concerning it, it all depends on his stipulation!19  — We mean, similar to the oil in the lamp: since it was set apart for its precept, it was set apart for its interdict.20  It was stated likewise: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: R. Simeon rejects mukzeh save in a case similar to the oil in the lamp while it is burning: since it was set apart for its precept, it was set apart for its interdict.

Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: In R. Simeon's view mukzeh applies only to drying figs and grapes.21  But [does it apply] to nothing else? Surely it was taught: If one was eating figs, left [some] over, and took them up to the roof to make dried figs; or grapes, and left [some] over and took them up to the roof to make raisins: he may not eat [of them] unless he designates them.22  And you must say the same of peaches, quinces, and other kinds of fruit.23  Which Tanna is this? Shall we say, R. Judah: seeing that he maintains [the prohibition of] mukzeh even where one does not reject it with his own hands, how much more so where he does reject it with his own hands!24  Hence it must surely be R. Simeon?25 — After all, it is R. Judah, yet the case of eating is necessary: I might argue, since he was engaged in eating, no designation is required; hence we are informed that since he took them up to the roof, he withdrew his thoughts thence.

R. Simeon b. Rabbi asked Rabbi:

To Part b

Original footnotes renumbered.
  1. I.e., before the Sabbath, that it should burn during the Sabbath. There is no fear that he will take and use it if it goes out, thereby technically making use of what is attached to the soil. For since it was mukzeh at twilight it may not be used for the whole of the Sabbath.
  2. For then one may remove it from the tree, replace it, and so on, thus making use of the tree itself, which is prohibited.
  3. He will not remove it from the tree on the Sabbath, because of the interdict of mukzeh, which in this respect does not operate on Festivals.
  4. None at all. Hence he must hold as R. Judah.
  5. After it has been extinguished.
  6. The Parsees, being fire worshippers, forbade the Jews to have fire in their houses during their (the Parsees') festivities. Consequently the Hanukkah lamp, which was lit near the street (supra 21b), would have to be hidden on the approach of a Parsee.
  7. This does not agree with R. Judah.
  8. May they be removed on the Sabbath for use, before the wheat has taken root or the egg become addled?
  9. As here. When one sows wheat in the soil or places an egg under a fowl, he rejects it for the time being.
  10. I.e., for the Sabbath lamp.
  11. Sc. the prohibition of extinguishing a light on the Sabbath renders this oil inaccessible while the lamp is burning. The text follows an old Tosaf. (v. Marginal gloss). Curr. edd.: since it was set apart for its precept, it was set apart (i.e., rendered mukzeh and forbidden) for its interdict. But the general context shows that the amended version is preferable.
  12. Viz., that that alone suffices to render it forbidden.
  13. V. supra 22a for notes. Thus we see that mere setting apart for the fulfilment of a precept casts an interdict.
  14. The reference is not to a sukkah (q.v. Glos.) but to an ordinary booth or hut. Even if it collapses during a Festival, one must not take the timber for use, because had it not collapsed it might not be pulled down on the Festival, and this renders it mukzeh.
  15. Or, supporting it. If a bundle of wood was laid against the wall of the hut, in a measure serving as a support, it may be used on the Festival, because that must have been the owner's intention before the Festival, and so it is not mukzeh. Again, its removal will not cause the hut to collapse.
  16. Because he rejects the prohibition of mukzeh,
  17. 'The Festival' without a determinant always means Tabernacles.
  18. if the sukkah collapses, its wood must not be used during the whole seven days of the Festival, as it had been set aside for the precept.
  19. Thus we see that the previous Baraitha does agree with R. Simeon!
  20. I.e., the former alone imposes the interdict.
  21. When they are spread out to dry they cease to be fit for food until fully dried. Hence they are certainly rejected as food, and so even R. Simeon admits the prohibition.
  22. He may not eat them on a Festival, because he has rendered them mukzeh, unless he designates them as food before the Festival, thereby annulling their character of mukzeh.
  23. Though they are fit during the process of drying.
  24. Hence it is unnecessary to state it where he puts fruit aside for drying. Even if he merely stores it is forbidden, according to R. Judah.
  25. Proving that he admits mukzeh in other cases too,
Tractate List

Shabbath 45b

What of unripe dates1  according to R. Simeon? Said he to him: R. Simeon holds that mukzeh applies only to drying figs and raisins.

But does not Rabbi accept mukzeh?2  Surely we learnt: Pasture animals may not be watered and killed,3  but home animals may be watered and killed. And it was taught: These are pasture animals: those that go out on Passover and re-enter [the town limits] at the rainfall;4  home animals: those that go out and graze beyond the tehum and re-enter and spend the night within the tehum.5  Rabbi said: Both of these are home animals; but the following are pasture animals: those that graze in the meadow6  and do not enter the town limits7  either in summer or in winter.8 — If you wish I can answer: these too are like drying figs and raisins. Alternatively, he9  answered according to R. Simeon's view, which he himself does not accept. Another alternative: he10  speaks according to the view of the Rabbis. As for me, I do not accept mukzeh at all;11  but even on your view, you must at least agree with me that if they go out on Passover and return at the rainfall they are home animals? But the Rabbis answered him: No! they are pasture animals.12

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: They13  ruled: The halachah is as R. Simeon. But did R. Johanan say thus? Surely a certain old man of Kirwaya-others say, of Sirvaya-asked R. Johanan: May a fowl-nest be handled on the Sabbath? He answered him: Is it made for aught but fowls?14  — Here the circumstances are that it contains a dead bird.15  That is well according to Mar b. Amemar in Raba's name, who said: R. Simeon admits that if living creatures die, they are forbidden;16  but on the view of Mar son of R. Joseph in Raba's name, who maintained: R. Simeon differed even in respect of living creatures that died, [ruling] that they are permitted, what can be said? — The reference here is to one [sc. a hen coop] that contains an egg.17  But R. Nahman said: He who accepts [the prohibition of] mukzeh accepts [that of] nolad; he who rejects mukzeh, rejects nolad? — That is when it contains the egg of a fledgling.18

When R. Isaac son of R. Joseph came,19  he said in the name of R. Johanan The halachah is as R. Judah: while R. Joshua b. Levi said: The halachah is as R. Simeon. R. Joseph observed: Hence Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name, They said, The halachah is as R. Simeon: they said, but he himself [R. Johanan] did not rule thus. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: And do you yourself not hold that R. Johanan [rules] as R. Judah?20  Surely R. Abba and R. Assi visited R. Abba of Haifa,21  when a candelabrum fell on R. Assi's robe, but he did not remove it. What is the reason? Surely because R. Assi was R. Johanan's disciple, and R. Johanan held as R. Judah, who maintained [the prohibition of] mukzeh? — You speak of a candelabrum? he replied. A candelabrum is different, for R. Aha b. Hanina said in R. Assi's name: Resh Lakish gave a practical ruling in Zidon: A candelabrum which can be lifted with one hand may be moved; that which requires two hands may not be moved. But R. Johanan said: In the matter of a lamp we accept no other view but R. Simeon's; but as for a candelabrum, whether it can be lifted by one hand or by two, it may not be moved.22  And what is the reason?23 — Rabbah and R. Joseph both say: Because one appoints a place for it. Said Abaye to R. Joseph, But what of a bridal couch24  for which [too] one appoints a place, yet Samuel said on R. Hiyya's authority: A bridal couch

- To Next Folio -

Original footnotes renumbered.
  1. Lit., 'burst dates', I.e., unripe dates that fell off from the tree and were placed in the sun to ripen (Jast.). Others: dates that are split and placed in the sun to ripen. Whilst they are ripening and drying they suffer discoloration and are unfit, yet not so unfit as drying figs and raisins.
  2. It is now assumed that Rabbi was asked about R. Simeon's view because it is his own too.
  3. On Festivals. The animals were first watered, to make it easier to flay them.
  4. Which takes place in Marheshwan: thus they spend about eight months in the commons beyond the town limits.
  5. V. Glos.
  6. Outside the town limits.
  7. Lit., 'inhabited territory'.
  8. Pasture animals may not be slaughtered on Festivals because they are mukzeh, i.e., their owner has altogether put them out of mind.-Animals were frequently watered before slaughter, in order to facilitate the flaying of their skin.
  9. Rabbi, in his reply to his son Simeon.
  10. Rabbi, in the last cited Baraitha.
  11. So that pasture animals, however defined, are permitted.
  12. On this passage see Bezah, Sonc. ed., p. 202f notes.
  13. The scholars of the Academy.
  14. I.e., it is mukzeh, and forbidden. Thus he does not rule as R. Simeon.
  15. Hence it may not be handled, even according to R. Simeon.
  16. They may not even be cut up for dogs. That is if they were in good health at twilight, so that one's thoughts were completely turned away from it. If the animal was dying at twilight and perished after nightfall, R. Simeon maintains that it can be cut up for dogs, because the owner must have thought of it.
  17. Laid that day. It is then nolad (newly created), which R. Simeon admits is forbidden.
  18. I.e., upon which the fowl is brooding. This is quite unfit and the nest may not be handled on all views.
  19. From Palestine to Babylon. He was a Palestinean amora, the disciple of R. Abbahu and R. Johanan, and transmitted teachings in the latter's name; he travelled to Babylon (Hul. 101a) and acted as an intermediary between the two countries on religious questions.
  20. Even before you heard it from R. Isaac.
  21. A harbour of the Mediterranean sea on the coast of Palestine.
  22. Hence, but for the dictum of R. Isaac, R. Joseph would not have known R. Johanan's view. But now he knows that in all cases R. Johanan ruled as R. Judah, that mukzeh is forbidden, save in the matter of an old lamp, which he holds may be handled, agreeing there with R, Simeon.
  23. That a candelabrum which requires both hands for lifting may not be moved.
  24. Without an overhead awning. V. also T.A. III, 42f, 122.
Tractate List