(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 143


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."

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 for dogs.

(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. Kornfeld)

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.

(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 of bread.)

(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).

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.


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.

(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.

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).
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