Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 154

154b

QUESTION: Rav Huna rules that if one's animal was carrying glass utensils, one may place pillows underneath the animal and undo the straps so that the glass items fall down onto the pillows and do not break. The Gemara questions Rav Huna's ruling from our Mishnah, which states clearly that one may move utensils on Shabbos. The Gemara answers that Rav Huna was referring to utensils which are Muktzah -- "Karnei d'Umna" -- which may not be handled on Shabbos. Rashi explains that they are not fit for use on Shabbos because they are loathsome (Muktzah Machmas Mi'us).

On Daf 157a, the Gemara explains that the Halachic ruling is like Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi Shimon maintains that there is no such thing as Muktzah Machmas Mi'us. If so, why should the Gemara suggest that Karnei d'Umna are Muktzah?!

ANSWERS:

(a) The RASHBA explains that the instruments of a blood-letter are more repulsive than utensils which are just "Muktzah Machmas Mi'us." An old oil lamp, for instance, even though it is dirty and disgusting still has some useful purpose, for it can be used to cover a barrel, if not for lighting. The instruments of a blood-letter, though, are so disgusting that they would not be used even to cover a barrel. This appears to be Rashi's intention in our Sugya as well (DH d'Umni, "they are not fit for *anything*)

(b) The RITVA and BA'AL HA'ME'OR answer that the Karnei d'Umna are Muktzah because of *Chisaron Kis* (they are very delicate items), and not because of Mi'us. Rebbi Shimon agrees with the concept of Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis (157a).

(c) The RASHBA suggests that the Karnei d'Umna fall into the category of Kli she'Melachto l'Isur (since it is forbidden to draw blood on Shabbos), and therefore they may not be moved on Shabbos merely to save them from damage.

(According to the Rashba, we may deduce that an item supporting a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur is considered a Basis l'Davar ha'Asur, since the Gemara says that the pillows onto which the Karnei d'Umna fall become unusable because they are supporting Muktzah items).

The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that if a Sukah was comprised of two walls that were built by man and the third wall was a tree, it is a valid Sukah but one may not go into it on Yom Tov because he will be using the tree. The Gemara attempts to prove from here that "Tzedadin" (the sides of a tree or animal) may not be used on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

In what way is the tree being used in this case?

OPINIONS:

(a) RASHI explains that the Beraisa is referring to a case where the roof (Sechach) of the Sukah is being supported by the tree on one side. In what way is one using the tree when he goes into the Sukah? One may suggest that sitting under the Sechach is considered using a tree, since the Sechach is being partially supported by the tree.

(b) The RITVA argues and says that sitting under the shade of the Sechach is not called using the tree, because one is certainly allowed to sit in the shade of a tree on Shabbos and Yom Tov. Rather, the reason that one is using the tree in this case is because it was the normal manner for people to place their belongings on top of the Sukah when they entered. This actually appears to be the intention of Rashi in our Sugya (DH Shetayim), and Tosfos (DH Shetayim, in his first explanation) and in Sukah (22b) offers a similar explanation.

It may be asked that according to this explanation, the prohibition to use the Sukah on Yom Tov would seem to be a Gezeirah l'Gezeirah. It is prohibited mid'Rabanan to use this Sukah on Yom Tov lest one place his belongings on the Sechach, which is itself forbidden only because of a Gezeirah d'Rabanan. Apparently, it was very common for people to place belongings on top of a Sukah, and therefore Chazal considered this to be one large Gezeirah ("Kula Chada Gezeirah Hi"). (M. Kornfeld)

(c) TOSFOS suggests a third explanation. The bottom of the Sukah is built on and supported by the top of a tree. Therefore, when one walks into the Sukah and walks on *its floor*, one is using the tree.

Tosfos in Sukah (22b), however, rejects this explanation and accepts Rashi's explanation instead, because it is implicit in our Sugya that the roof (Sechach) of the Sukah, and not the floor of the Sukah, is on the tree. What does Tosfos mean? How is this implied in our Sugya?

1. Perhaps Tosfos learned this from the Gemara's conclusion that the tree serving the Sukah is a bushy tree which does not touch the Sukah. If the tree is supposed to be supporting the *floor*, what purpose does it serve if it does not touch it? If the tree is serving as a *wall*, though, it can serve as a wall even if it does not touch any part of the Sukah or Sechach.

2. Second, the Gemara concludes later on the Daf that the Tosefta, in which Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar argues with the Mishnah and permits one to go into a Sukah supported by a tree, is referring to "Tzidei Tzedadin" (the sides of the sides of a tree) and not "Tzedadin." If the Mishnah is referring to a tree that is supporting the *roof*, then it can easily be construed that the tree, which we considered until now to be Tzedadin, is now being defined as Tzidei Tzedadin: For instance it was supporting a wall which, in turn, supports the roof (as Rashi tells us, DH Amar Abaye). But if the Mishnah is referring to a tree supporting the *floor* of a Sukah, the tree is clearly an immediate support, i.e. "Tzedadin" and not "Tzidei Tzedadin." The Gemara cannot assert that it is only Tzidei Tzedadin without redefining the entire Mishnah. (M. Kornfeld)