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) DRY BONES
QUESTION: In the Mishnah, Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel argue how to remove
bones and shells from the table on Shabbos. RASHI explains that the Mishnah
is referring to "hard bones *that are not fit* for a dog."
2) CARRYING A "MUKTZAH" ITEM TOGETHER WITH A PERMITTED ITEM
According to Rashi, why does Beis Shamai permit moving these items if they
are not fit for any use at all? Everyone agrees, even Rebbi Shimon, that
something that is totally unfit for use on Shabbos (like a rock) is Muktzah
and may not be moved (46a)!
Furthermore, the Gemara here says explicitly that the Tana who permits
moving bones and shells follows the view of Rebbi Shimon. Rebbi Shimon only
permits moving such items when they are fit for animals (Shabbos 29a and
other places)! (TOSFOS, DH Atzamos)
(a) Because of this problem, TOSFOS (and every other Rishon) argue with
Rashi and say that the Mishnah is referring to soft bones that *are* fit
(b) In an earlier manuscript of Rashi's commentary (cited by the DIKDUKEI
SOFRIM), and in Rashi's commentary that appears aside the Rif, the wording
in Rashi too is, "Hard bones that *are* fit for a dog."
Tosfos, though, obviously had the text "that are not fit" in his version of
Rashi. It seems that originally, Rashi wrote one explanation and later he
changed his mind (as we find in a number of places in Maseches Shabbos;
see, for example, Rashi on 112b, DH Aval Tamei Maga, and Tosfos there, DH
Sandal). The text of Rashi in our Gemara is apparently from the first
edition. Rashi changed his mind, though, and later wrote that the bones are
indeed fit for dogs, as Tosfos explains.
(c) However, what did Rashi have in mind when he originally wrote that the
bones are not fit for dogs? Why should Beis Shamai permit moving them if
they are totally unfit?
It seems that Rashi was bothered by the fact that in the Gemara, Rav
Nachman reverses the opinions of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai as they appear
in our Mishnah. Rav Nachman says that Beis Hillel is lenient and permits
moving the bones, and Beis Shamai prohibits it. Perhaps Rashi wondered how
Rav Nachman felt it proper to totally reverse the Mishnah and consequently
change Beis Hillel's ruling and the Halachic conclusion.
Rashi therefore learned our Mishnah differently. Beis Hillel is certainly
ruling in accordance with Rebbi Shimon, even according to *our* version of
the Mishnah. If so, why does he say that it is prohibited to move the bones
directly? He must be referring to *hard* bones that are totally unfit for
use, which Rebbi Shimon agrees is Muktzah. Beis Shamai, though, permits
moving such. He is expressing a completely new opinion (since both Rebbi
Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon would prohibit moving such bones) that maintains
that there is no Isur of Muktzah at all. Consequently, when Rav Nachman
modifies the opinions in the Mishnah, he is only changing the opinion of
Beis *Shamai*. Beis Shamai is now Machmir, and rules like Rebbi Yehudah,
and the Mishnah is referring to bones that *are* fit for animals. Beis
Hillel's opinion remains the same (that is, Beis Hillel rules like Rebbi
Shimon). Rashi only explained that the bones are hard according to *our*
Girsa in the Mishnah.
(Rashi's comment on the Mishnah that Beis Hillel rules "like Rebbi
Yehudah," according to this, is part of the *second* edition of Rashi's
commentary (that is, it is consistent with what Rashi on the Rif says). We
see a similar confusion of editions in Rashi on 112b, where the first and
second editions of Rashi were combined -- see Insights to 112:4:b.) (M.
QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that date pits with no flesh on them are
Muktzah and may not be moved. Shmuel would move them by placing them on top
of bread and carrying them on the bread.
However, we saw earlier (142b) that Rav Yosef, Abaye, and Rava taught that it is not permitted to carry Muktzah on top of a permissible item. Does
Shmuel argue with all of those Amora'im?
(a) TOSFOS (DH Rava, and in Beitzah 21b, DH Oseh Adam) explains that it is
permitted to carry Muktzah on top of bread only when that Muktzah came into
existence on Shabbos (Nolad) and was not in existence before Shabbos. The
Gemara earlier was discussing Muktzah that was in existence before Shabbos
and could have been moved before the onset of Shabbos.
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 308:5) cites the Rosh (c) with regard to
moving a Kli sh'Melachto l'Isur on top of bread, but the MISHNAH BERURAH
(26) points out that many Rishonim do not agree to this ruling.
With regard to date pits, however, the SHULCHAN ARUCH (308:30) and MISHNAH
BERURAH (308:124) explain that a prominent person is required to be
stringent and move the pits only with a Shinuy, such as by placing them on
top of bread, so that onlookers do not mistakenly think that it is
permitted to carry similar items which are Muktzah.
(b) The RAMBAN and RASHBA explain that the case of Shmuel is different than
the case earlier. Earlier, the Gemara was discussing carrying *Muktzah*
which has a permissible item on top of it (that is, one actually grasps the
Muktzah item). Here, though, Shmuel carried the *permissible* item with the
Muktzah on top of it.
(c) The ROSH says that it is prohibited to carry a Muktzah item by placing
it on bread. Only when the item is not really Muktzah, but one wants to be
stringent, is it permitted to carry the item by placing it on top of a
permissible item. The date pits in this case were not really Muktzah
(because we rule like Rebbi Shimon who maintains that Nolad is not
prohibited). However, since Shmuel was a prominent figure, he was stringent
in this matter (as we saw earlier on 142b).
(This is similar to the Rosh's view elsewhere (Teshuvos 22:9), where the
Rosh writes that a Kli sh'Melachto l'Isur may be carried by placing bread
on top of it. The Kli is not intrinsically forbidden to be moved since it
may be moved l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mekomo; it is only prohibited to be moved for
no purpose or for a forbidden purpose. Therefore it may be carried on top
(d) The ROSH in Beitzah (21b) explains that Shmuel did not place the date
pits on top of bread. Rather, he spit them out into a basket that also
contained bread, and then he carried the basket (which became a Basis
l'Davar ha'Asur veha'Mutar).
3) HALACHAH: GATHERING FRUIT THAT FELL OUT OF A CONTAINER ON SHABBOS
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that if fruit falls out of a basket in a
Chatzer, one may pick up the fruit one by one and eat it, but he may not
gather all the fruit into the basket the way he would do on a weekday.
The Gemara earlier (142a) said that if one has a basket with fruit and a
stone in it and one wants to move the basket, if possible he should spill
out the fruit and stone from the basket, and then put the fruit back into
the basket and carry it. However, once he shakes out the fruit, it should
be forbidden for him to put it back into the basket! How can we reconcile
the Gemara earlier with the teaching of the Gemara here?
(a) The RAMBAN explains that it is only prohibited to put back the fruit if
it falls out in a Chatzer, because there it gets mixed with dirt and
pebbles and while gathering the fruit one will perform the Melachah of
Borer. The Gemara earlier was referring to shaking out the basket in a
clean area inside one's house.
HALACHAH: The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 335:5) rules in accordance with the
stringent points of both the Ramban and Rabeinu Yonah. That is, a person
may not gather fruit that is spread out over a large area (like Rabeinu
Yonah), nor may he gather fruit that is spread out in a small area which is
dirty and rocky (like the Ramban).
(b) RABEINU YONAH, cited by the Ramban, explains that it is only prohibited
to gather the fruit if they fall over a large area. If they fall in one
compact area, it is permitted to pick them up (since it is not a
weekday-type of activity).
(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Shabbos 21:12) writes that the "weekday activity"
here is that one might inadvertently do an act of Imur. According to the
Rambam, Imur is defined as *pressing* together sheaves or fruit in a
basket. Here, the fear is that one might press the fruit together in the
basket. If so, this applies only to soft fruit which can be pressed into
one large body. Perhaps the Gemara earlier was referring to hard fruit, and
thus there was no concern that one might do Imur.