Shabbat 89

הכי נמי מיסתברא דרב כר' יהודה סבירא ליה דאמר רב מניחין נר על גבי דקל בשבת ואין מניחין נר ע"ג דקל בי"ט אי אמרת בשלמא דרב כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה היינו דשני בין שבת לי"ט אלא אי אמרת כרבי שמעון סבירא ליה מה לי שבת ומה לי י"ט

Logic too avers that Rab agrees with R. Judah. For Rab said: A lamp may be placed on a palm tree for the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹</span> but not on a Festival.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For then one may remove it from the tree, replace it, and so on, thus making use of the tree itself, which is prohibited. ');">²</span> Now, it is well if you admit that Rab holds as R. Judah: hence he draws a distinction between the Sabbath and Festivals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">³</span>

ורב כרבי יהודה ס"ל והא בעו מיניה דרב מהו לטלטולי שרגא דחנוכתא מקמי חברי בשבתא ואמר להו שפיר דמי שעת הדחק שאני דהא א"ל רב כהנא ורב אשי לרב הכי הלכתא אמר להו כדי הוא ר' שמעון לסמוך עליו בשעת הדחק

But if you say that he holds as R. Simeon, what is the difference between the Sabbath and Festivals?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' None at all. Hence he must hold as R. Judah. ');">⁴</span> But does Rab hold as R. Judah? Surely Rab was asked: Is it permitted to move the Hanukkah lamp<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After it has been extinguished. ');">⁵</span> on account of the Guebres on the Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁶</span>

בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מר' יוחנן חטים שזרען בקרקע וביצים שתחת תרנגולת מהו כי לית ליה לר' שמעון מוקצה היכא דלא דחייה בידים היכא דדחייה בידים אית ליה מוקצה או דילמא לא שנא א"ל אין מוקצה לרבי שמעון אלא שמן שבנר בשעה שהוא דולק הואיל והוקצה למצותו הוקצה לאיסורו

and he answered them, It is well.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This does not agree with R. Judah. ');">⁷</span> — 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' May they be removed on the Sabbath for use, before the wheat has taken root or the egg become addled? ');">⁸</span>

ולית ליה הוקצה למצותו והתניא סיככה כהלכתה ועיטרה בקרמים ובסדינין המצויירין ותלה בה אגוזין אפרסקין שקדים ורמונין ואפרכלי של ענבים ועטרות של שבולין יינות שמנים וסלתות אסור להסתפק מהן עד מוצאי י"ט האחרון ואם התנה עליהן הכל לפי תנאו

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As here. When one sows wheat in the soil or places an egg under a fowl, he rejects it for the time being. ');">⁹</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for the Sabbath lamp. ');">¹⁰</span> and set apart on account of its prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹¹</span>

וממאי דר' שמעון היא דתני ר' חייא בר יוסף קמיה דר' יוחנן אין נוטלין עצים מן הסוכה בי"ט אלא מן הסמוך לה ור' שמעון מתיר ושוין בסוכת החג בחג שהיא אסורה ואם התנה עליה הכל לפי תנאו כעין שמן שבנר קאמרינן הואיל והוקצה למצותו הוקצה לאיסורו איתמר נמי א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן אין מוקצה לרבי שמעון אלא כעין שמן שבנר בשעה שהוא דולק הואיל והוקצה למצותו הוקצה לאיסורו

But does he not [accept it where] it [only] was set apart for its precept?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that that alone suffices to render it forbidden. ');">¹²</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 22a for notes. Thus we see that mere setting apart for the fulfilment of a precept casts an interdict. ');">¹³</span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין מוקצה לר' שמעון אלא גרוגרות וצימוקים בלבד ומידי אחרינא לא והתניא היה אוכל בתאנים והותיר והעלן לגג לעשות מהן גרוגרות בענבים והותיר והעלן לגג לעשות מהן צימוקין לא יאכל עד שיזמין וכן אתה אומר באפרסקין וחבושין ובשאר כל מיני פירות

save from what is near it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁵</span> but R. Simeon permits it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because he rejects the prohibition of mukzeh, ');">¹⁶</span> Yet both agree in respect to the <i>sukkah</i> of the Festival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The Festival' without a determinant always means Tabernacles. ');">¹⁷</span>

מני אילימא רבי יהודה ומה היכא דלא דחייה בידים אית ליה מוקצה היכא דדחייה בידים לא כל שכן

that it is forbidden on the Festival;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">¹⁸</span> yet if he [the owner) stipulated concerning it, it all depends on his stipulation!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus we see that the previous Baraitha does agree with R. Simeon! ');">¹⁹</span> — We mean, similar to the oil in the lamp: since it was set apart for its precept, it was set apart for its interdict.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the former alone imposes the interdict. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא לאו ר' שמעון היא לעולם רבי יהודה ואוכל אצטריכא ליה סד"א כיון דקאכיל ואזיל לא ליבעי הזמנה קמ"ל כיון דהעלן לגג אסוחי אסחי לדעתיה מינייהו

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²¹</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²²</span>

בעא מיניה רבי שמעון בר רבי מרבי

And you must say the same of peaches, quinces, and other kinds of fruit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though they are fit during the process of drying. ');">²³</span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²⁴</span> Hence it must surely be R. Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Proving that he admits mukzeh in other cases too, ');">²⁵</span> — 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: