Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 127

1) HALACHAH: MOVING MUKTZAH WITH DIFFERENT PARTS OF ONE'S BODY

OPINIONS: The Gemara says that (according to Rebbi Yehudah) even though it is not permitted to move the barrels of straw and grain in a storehouse if they were not prepared for use before Shabbos, one may nevertheless move the barrels with one's feet as he walks in order to enter and exit. This Gemara seems to imply that it is permitted to move Muktzah with parts of one's body other than one's hands.

Halachically, is it permitted for a person to move Muktzah with part of his body to get it out of his way?

(a) The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 311:8) rules like the ROSH (43b) who explains that the Mishnah (141a) tells us that one may move the straw on a bed with his elbow (or some other part of the body that is not usually used to move such items) in order to lie down even though the straw is Muktzah. From this the Rosh deduces that it is permissible to move Muktzah with a part of the body other than the hands. The MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 308:13) rules like this as well.

(b) However, the CHAZON ISH (OC 47:13) cites proof from our Gemara to the contrary. A person may move Muktzah objects in a storehouse with his feet while he is walking in order to enter and exit. Rashi explains that *while he is walking*, he moves it with his foot. This implies that he may not move the Muktzah in a *clearly intentional* act even if it is done with his foot.

What does the Chazon Ish do with the Mishnah concerning the bed of straw? The Chazon Ish explains, based on his interpretation of the RAMBAN (in Milchamos there) and RAN (43b), that the Sugya there is referring to moving the straw not directly, but indirectly by lying on the bed. The Mishnah is then similar to our Sugya, which permits moving Muktzah while ostensibly performing another act. The Chazon Ish asserts that this is also the intention of the Rosh. (See Insights to Daf 141a, for more on this subject.)

(It is not clear why the Chazon Ish mentions that he argues just with the *Mishnah Berurah*, when the Shulchan Aruch himself seems to be ruling the same way as the Mishnah Berurah.)

(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shabbos 26:15) appears to have an entirely different understanding of our Gemara. The Gemara is not talking about moving the Muktzah with one's foot, but smoothing the inconsistencies in the floor with one's foot. If so, there is no proof from here that one may move Muktzah with one's foot in any manner.

127b

QUESTION: The Gemara relates an incident involving "a certain Chasid" ("Ma'aseh b'Chasid Echad") who redeemed a girl from captivity. When he and his students were traveling back with the redeemed girl, they lodged at an inn and the Chasid slept with the girl at his feet. In the morning, he immersed himself in a Mikvah. His students accurately judged him favorably when they assumed that he had immersed in order to purify himself from Keri that occurred to him as a result of the stress of traveling. RASHI points out that wherever the Gemara mentions "a certain Chasid," it refers to either Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava or Rebbi Yehudah bar Rebbi Ila'i, as the Gemara elsewhere states (Bava Kama 103b, Temurah 15b).

Why does Rashi mention this fact here, and not in the other places in the Gemara where "a certain Chasid" is mentioned (for example, Berachos 18b)?

ANSWER: The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH (cited in the Gilyon ha'Shas) quotes an answer he heard from the Pnei Yehoshua. In the incident in our Gemara, the Chasid immersed himself in a Mikvah because of Keri. Rashi was bothered by the fact that we rule like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah, who states (Berachos 22a) that there is no obligation to immerse for Keri, because "Divrei Torah cannot become Tamei." Rashi answers that this Chasid was Rebbi Yehudah b'Rebbi Ila'i, who maintains (ibid.) that one must immerse for Keri.

The RASHASH challenges this answer. We see in the next incident recorded in the Gemara that Rebbi Yehoshua immersed himself before teaching Torah to his students, since he was made Tamei by the spit of a gentile woman, which is like the spit of a Zavah. Why did he find it necessary to go to the Mikvah? Even a Zav/Zavah themselves are permitted to learn Torah, according to all opinions! Only a Ba'al Keri is prohibited, according to some, from learning Torah. Obviously, then, he must have immersed as a stringency, beyond the letter of the law. It is logical to assume that in the previous case as well, the Chasid immersed as a stringency. If so, that Chasid could even have been Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseirah!.