(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Shabbos 30


OPINIONS: The Gemara explains that it is permitted to extinguish a candle for a sick person who is in mortal danger and needs the room to be dark. When the Mishnah says that one who extinguishes a candle for such a sick person is "Patur," it means that it is Mutar (permitted) to do so.

Does this law apply even if there is another way to make the room dark for the sick person, such as by carrying him into another room, or by carrying out the candle, or putting up a divider?

(a) The RAMBAM (Perush ha'Mishnayos) says that it is prohibited to extinguish a candle for a sick person if there is some other way to make the room dark for him.

The BI'UR HALACHAH (OC 278) proves from our Gemara that according to the Rambam, it is forbidden *mid'Oraisa* to extinguish a candle for a sick person when there is some other way to make it dark for him. The Gemara wanted to know why the Mishnah says that one who extinguishes a candle for a sick person is "Patur" (and not "Chayav" if it is talking about a sick person who is not in danger, or "Mutar" if it is talking about a sick person in danger). Since the Gemara did not answer that one is Patur when he extinguishes a candle for a sick person in mortal danger *when there is some other way to make the room dark*, it must be that one would *not* be Patur, but would be Chayav. It must be, then, that it is forbidden mid'Oraisa.

(b) The CHIDUSHEI HA'RAN cites the RE'AH who permits extinguishing a candle for a sick person in danger even if there is another way to make the room dark. The ME'IRI (cited by the Bi'ur Halachah) also permits it.

RAV YEHOSHUA NEUWIRTH in SHEMIRAS SHABBOS KE'HILCHASA (32:175*) suggests that the argument between the Rambam and Re'ah may be dependent upon the opinions that they expressed elsewhere. The Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 2:1) maintains that desecrating Shabbos for the sake of saving a life merely *overrides* the laws of Shabbos (Shabbos is "Dechuyah" for Piku'ach Nefesh), but does not *permit* the prohibitions of Shabbos entirely. That is, the prohibitions of Shabbos are still in effect, but for Piku'ach Nefesh it is permitted to transgress them. Other Rishonim maintain that the prohibitions of Shabbos are entirely permitted for the sake of saving a life (Shabbos is "Hutrah" for Piku'ach Nefesh).

Since the Rambam maintains that the laws of Shabbos are still in effect, he forbids extinguishing a candle for a sick person when there is some other way to make the room dark. The Re'ah, on the other hand, maintains that the laws of Shabbos are entirely suspended for Piku'ach Nefesh, and since all of the prohibitions of Shabbos entirely disappear, one may extinguish a candle even if there is another way to make the room dark.

HALACHAH: Shemiras Shabbos ke'Hilchasah (32:70) writes that if it is possible to move the sick person out of the room *easily*, then one should do so and not extinguish the candle.
QUESTION: When Shlomo ha'Melech brought the Aron ha'Kodesh to the Beis ha'Mikdash (Kodesh Kadoshim, -Rashi) the gates would not open for him until he prayed that they open in the merit of his father, David ha'Melech. When the gates opened at the mention of David ha'Melech, this exonerated David ha'Melech, proving him righteous and innocent of any wrongdoing, much to the consternation of his enemies. Why was the merit of David ha'Melech mentioned specifically at this point?

ANSWER: The verse (Divrei ha'Yamim I 22:8) relates that Hashem told David ha'Melech that he, personally, cannot build the Beis ha'Mikdash because he was involved in wars; rather, his son will build it. The Gemara (Makos 10a) tells us that people used to taunt David ha'Melech, asking him when he will die so that they will have the Beis ha'Mikdash (see also Yerushalmi Berachos 2:1). In response to their derision, David ha'Melech rejoiced and said that he is happy to see that the people desire to have the Beis ha'Mikdash.

His enemies claimed that he was not fit to have the Beis ha'Mikdash built in his lifetime due to his sins (with Batsheva). Hashem wanted to show them that David ha'Melech was indeed worthy of building the Beis ha'Mikdash, but was not to be involved in its construction for another reason. When the Beis ha'Mikdash was eventually built by his son (= Shlomo, the son of Batsheva) it was built totally in the merit of David ha'Melech. This is why here, at the dedication of the Beis ha'Mikdash, everyone was shown the righteousness of David ha'Melech. (M. KORNFELD)


QUESTION: The Gemara teaches that a dead body (which is Muktzah) may be moved on Shabbos by placing a loaf of bread or a baby on top of it.

The SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 311:3) cites the ruling of the Mordechai that if the body has clothes on it, one may move the body without putting anything else on top of it (since the clothes are not Muktzah, and serve the same purpose as the loaf or baby). The SHELAH HA'KODESH challenges this ruling from our Gemara, because certainly the body of David ha'Melech was garbed in clothes, and yet the Sages did not permit moving the body without placing another object on top of it!


(a) The MAGEN AVRAHAM cites those who answer that when a king dies, it is not permitted for anyone else to use his possessions, and thus they would be burned. Therefore, David ha'Melech's clothes were Muktzah, and his body could not be moved without putting a non-Muktzah object upon it.

However, the MACHTZIS HA'SHEKEL cites the BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH who asks that it *is* permitted for the *son of a king* to use his father's possessions. Since Shlomo ha'Melech was alive, he was permitted to use his father's clothes, and therefore they were not Muktzah!

The CHASAM SOFER (in our Sugya) answers that Shlomo ha'Melech felt that he was unfit to "fill his father's shoes," and therefore the clothes were also Muktzah to him. (The Sages of the time apparently concurred and ruled accordingly, that some other object which is not Muktzah must be placed on the body to permit moving it.)

(b) The EVEN SHOHAM (cited by the LEVUSHEI SERAD, OC ibid., and BECHOR SHOR) answer that the Halachah states (SHULCHAN ARUCH YD 364:4) that if a person dies by falling from a high place, he is buried *in his clothes* (instead of the usual procedure of removing his clothes and dressing the body in shrouds). Since David ha'Melech fell to his death when the stair broke under him, the Halachah required that he be buried in his clothes, and therefore they were Muktzah, since they were considered like shrouds and became Asur b'Hana'ah. (The SHACH, YD ibid., writes that the reason the clothes must be buried with him is because when a person falls and dies, he bleeds a lot and the clothing may contain a Revi'is of blood.)

Next daf


This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.
For information on subscriptions, archives, and other Shema Yisrael
Classes, send mail to daf@shemayisrael.co.il

Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Jerusalem, Israel

In the U.S.:
Tel. (908) 370-3344
Fax. (908) 367-6608

Toll free line for dedications: 1-800-574-2646