Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 46

1) REBBI RULED LIKE REBBI SHIMON

QUESTION: The Gemara relates that when Rebbi went to Diospera, he ruled that it is permitted to move a lamp while it is lit, in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon.

The Gemara on the previous page (45b) was in doubt whether Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Yehudah or like Rebbi Shimon. Why was the Gemara there in doubt when here we see explicitly that he ruled like Rebbi Shimon? (TOSFOS DH l'Devarav)

ANSWERS:

(a) The RAMBAN cites Tosfos who answers that the Gemara earlier did not know about this incident, and therefore it was in doubt as to how Rebbi ruled. In a similar vein, the RASHBA says that the Gemara earlier meant that we cannot prove from the *Mishnah in Beitzah* how Rebbi ruled. The Gemara knew, though, that Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Shimon from the incident discussed in the Gemara here, on 46a.

(b) The RAMBAN explains that the Gemara earlier knew that Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Shimon regarding Muktzah Machmas Isur. The Gemara was in doubt whether Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Yehudah in a case where the Muktzah is caused by the object not being readily available (such as the animals that stay outside the city). The P'NEI YEHOSHUA gives a similar answer.

(c) The P'NEI YEHOSHUA suggests that we find at times that an object might be Muktzah with regard to eating (Achilah), but not with regard to handling (Tiltul). This implies that Muktzah with regard to eating is more stringent. The Gemara here says that Rebbi rules like Rebbi Shimon with regard to Tiltul, while the Gemara earlier was asking whether Rebbi rules like Rebbi Shimon regarding *eating* Muktzah, which is the topic of discussion there.

QUESTION: When Rav Avya visited Rava, he removed his muddy shoes and placed them on Rava's couch. Rava wanted to harass Rav Avya in return by asking him a question he could not answer.

How could Talmidei Chachamim behave like this?

ANSWER: RAV YECHEZKEL AVRAMSKY (in CHAZON YECHEZKEL on Maseches Shabbos) suggests a brilliant explanation for what was really going on in this story, citing it in the name of Harav Yisrael Yehonasan Yerushalayimski.

The Gemara later (124b) says that if a person finds a small shard in the courtyard, it is not Muktzah, because it is considered a Kli (since it can be used for covering pots or other utensils which are commonly found in courtyards, Rashi DH b'Chatzer). Rava, there, teaches that even if one finds a shard in Reshus ha'Rabim, it is not Muktzah and may be handled, because -- were it found in a courtyard -- it has a use as a Kli. (That is, since it is a Kli when it is in a courtyard, where pots are commonplace, it is considered a Kli no matter where it is found, Rashi). The Gemara there continues and says that Rava was once walking through Reshus ha'Rabim and his shoes became muddy. He picked up a shard and wiped off his shoes, in keeping with his own opinion in this matter.

Rav Avya, who ruled like the Rabanan there and maintained that a shard is not considered a Kli in Reshus ha'Rabim, specifically wanted to show Rava that one may *not* use a shard to wipe off muddy shoes in Reshus ha'Rabim, because a shard is Muktzah. He therefore made a point of showing Rava that his shoes were still muddy when he walked in. Rava was upset that Rav Avya did not want to accept his opinion and specifically acted in opposition to his opinion. Rava wanted to prove to Rav Avya that his opinion was correct. He therefore pointed out that if an object is considered a Kli because it could be used for covering a pot, then all of the pebbles in the courtyard should not be Muktzah either. It should therefore follow that they should not be Muktzah even if they were in Reshus ha'Rabim, as Rava stated on Daf 124b.

(Rav Avya, though, merited Divine assistance and gave the correct answer to Rava's question. Even according to Rava's opinion, a *pebble* could not be used in Reshus ha'Rabim. Using an object as a cover for other utensils does not give it a status of a Kli; it only *preserves* the status of a Kli if it was already one, such as a shard from a broken clay Kli -M. Kornfeld)

46b

QUESTION: The Gemara asks, "Why does Rebbi Shimon prohibit moving a burning lamp."

What is the Gemara's question? The Gemara (45a) just taught that it is forbidden because it is Huktzah le'Mitzvaso and also because it is Huktzah l'Isuro! We know that it is Muktzah. Why, then, should one not be able to move it?

ANSWER: TOSFOS (45a, DH v'Ela -- see also RITVA in our Sugya, who explains this more clearly) explains that when something is Huktzah for a Mitzvah, one is only prohibited from using it in a way that will detract from the Mitzvah, such as taking oil out of the lamp. *Moving* it, however, is not going to take away from the Mitzvah. Therefore, Huktzah le'Mitzvaso will not prohibit *moving* it according to Rebbi Shimon.

Huktzah l'Isuro does not apply here, because the Isur that the Gemara there was referring to was that the lamp is a "Basis" to Muktzah (the flame), a concept which the Gemara has not yet introduced at this point. That is, the lamp is only considered Huktzah l'Isuro based on the conclusion of this Gemara. (M. Kornfeld -- see Chart #8; see also Insights to 45:1).