THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
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.
2) RAVA AND RAV AVYA'S ALTERCATION
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
(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
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
(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)
3) MOVING A BURNING LAMP
QUESTION: The Gemara asks, "Why does Rebbi Shimon prohibit moving a burning
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
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).