Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath

Folio 44a

if you do not permit [it] to him, he will come to extinguish [the fire].¹  R. Judah b. Shila said in the name of R. Assi in R. Johanan's name: The halachah is as R. Judah b. Lakish in the matter of the corpse.

YET ONE MAY NOT BENEFIT FROM IT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT OF MUKAN. Our Rabbis taught: The residue of oil in the lamp or in the dish is forbidden; but R. Simeon permits [it].

MISHNAH. A NEW LAMP²  MAY BE HANDLED, BUT NOT AN OLD ONE.³  R. SIMEON MAINTAINED: ALL LAMPS MAY BE HANDLED, EXCEPT A LAMP [ACTUALLY] BURNING ON THE SABBATH.

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: A new lamp⁴  may be moved, but not an old one: this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Meir ruled: All lamps may be moved, except a lamp which was lit on the Sabbath;⁵  R. Simeon said: Except a lamp burning on the Sabbath; if it is extinguished, it may be moved; but a cup, dish or glass lantern⁶  may not be stirred from its place. R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon said: One may take supplies from an extinguished lamp or from dripping oil, even while the lamp is burning.

Abaye observed: R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon agrees with his father on one [point] and disagrees with him on another. He agrees with his father on one [point] in reflecting [the prohibition of] mukzeh. Yet he disagrees with him on another: for whereas his father holds, Only if it is extinguished [is it permitted], but not otherwise; he holds, Even if it is not extinguished. 'But a cup, dish, or glass lantern may not be stirred from its place'. Wherein do these differ? — Said 'Ulla: This last clause follows R. Judah. Mar Zutra demurred to this: If so, why 'but'? — Rather, said Mar Zutra: In truth, it follows R. Simeon; yet R. Simeon permits [handling] only in the case of a small lamp, because one's mind is set upon it;⁷  but not [in the case of] these, which are large. But it was taught: The residue of oil in a lamp or in a dish is forbidden; while R. Simeon permits [it]? — There the dish is similar to the lamp:⁸  here the dish is similar to the cup.⁹

R. Zera said: A shaft¹⁰  in which [a lamp] was lit on [that] Sabbath,¹¹  in the view of him who permits [an earthen lamp],¹²  this is prohibited;¹³  in the view of him who forbids [an earthen lamp],¹⁴  this is permitted.¹⁵

Shall we say that R. Judah accepts [the prohibition of] mukzeh on account of repulsiveness, but rejects [that of] mukzeh on account of an interdict? But it was taught, R. Judah said: All metal lamps may be handled, except a lamp which was lit on the Sabbath?¹⁶  But if stated, it was thus stated: R. Zera said: A shaft on which a lamp was lit¹⁷  on the Sabbath, all agree that it is forbidden [to handle it]; if a lamp was not lit therein, all agree that it is permitted.

Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If a bed is designated for money, it may not be moved.¹⁸  R. Nahman b. Isaac objected: A NEW LAMP MAY BE HANDLED, BUT NOT AN OLD ONE.

1. Yet he may not permit it when the corpse is lying in the sun.
2. I.e., one which has never been used.
3. Once used it is mukzeh (q. v. Glos.) on account of its repulsiveness, which this Tanna holds is forbidden.
4. The reference is to an earthenware lamp.
5. Var. lec.: on that Sabbath.
6. The three used as lamps. For the various types of lamps and their descriptions v. T.A. I, 68 seq.
7. Thinking, the oil will not last long, and when it goes out I will use the lamp.
8. I.e., small.
9. Large.
10. [H]: 'a shaft with a receptacle for a lamp, a plain candlestick', Jast. Rashi: a metal candlestick.
11. Jast. reads: a shaft on which a lamp was lit etc. V. also) T.A. I, p. 70 and n. 234.
12. R. Meir.
13. Because it burnt on that Sabbath. This is known as mukzeh on account of an interdict, I.e., the lamp was employed on that Sabbath for burning, and one may not light a lamp on the Sabbath itself.
14. R. Judah: the reference is to an old lamp, which is mukzeh on account of repulsiveness.
15. Because R. Judah rejects the prohibition of mukzeh on account of an interdict.-Being of metal, the lamp is not regarded as repulsive, even when it has been used.
16. Var. lec.: on that Sabbath.
17. V. P. 202, n. 7. Here this is the reading of cur. edd.
18. Mere designation renders it forbidden, even if money was not actually placed there.

Now if a lamp, though made for that purpose, may be handled if it was not lit, how much more so a bed, which was not made for that purpose! Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab Judah said in Rab's name: In the case of a bed which was designated for money, if money was placed upon it,¹  it may not be handled; if money was not placed upon it, it may be handled. But if it was not designated for money, then if money is lying upon it [now], it may not be handled; if money is not lying upon it, it may be handled, provided that there was none upon it at twilight.²

R. Eleazar objected: As for its wheel-work, if detachable, it has no connection therewith, is not measured with it, does not protect together with it in [the matter of] a covering above the dead, and it may not be rolled on the Sabbath if there is money upon it.³  Hence if there is no money upon it [now] it is permitted, though it was there at twilight? — That is according to R. Simeon, who rejects [the law of] mukzeh,⁴  whereas Rab agrees with R. Judah.

1. Even on weekdays, and it was removed before the Sabbath. Yet it has thereby been set apart and employed for something (sc. money) that may not be handled on the Sabbath, and therefore may not be handled itself either.
2. Before the commencement of the Sabbath. For if there was money upon it at twilight, it could not be handled then, and being interdicted then it remains so for the whole Sabbath.
3. Kel. XVIII, 2. The reference is to the wheel-work of a carriage. It has no connection with the body of the carriage: if either the wheel-work or the carriage comes into contact with an unclean object, the other remains unaffected. Now, a utensil can become unclean only if its capacity is less than forty se'ahs, which Beth Hillel defines as referring to its displacement. Thus, not only is the hollow of the vessel reckoned, but also its sides, etc. Consequently, if the wheel-work were not detachable, its own volume too would be measured in conjunction with the body itself, but being detachable, it is not. Again, if any object or a human being is stationed directly above a corpse, e.g., it is suspended above a grave, even without touching it, it becomes unclean; but if an object of forty se'ahs capacity, e.g., a large box or the body of a carriage, intervenes, it is saved from uncleanliness. Now, if the body of this carriage, which is of forty se'ahs capacity, is piled up with articles, some of which protrude and overflow its sides, while the detachable wheel-work too is higher than the body, and thus the wheel-work interposes between these articles and the grave, it does not save them from uncleanness. For the body itself does not intervene, while the wheel-work has not a capacity of forty se'ahs, and it is not counted as part of the whole. The object which becomes unclean is technically called a tent or covering (ohel) of the dead. With respect to the last clause Ri explains: if it is not detachable it may be rolled even if money is lying upon it, because the wheel-work is then only part of the carriage, whilst there is no money upon the body thereof, which is the chief portion.
4. Nevertheless, since money may not be handled for any purpose whatsoever, he admits that the wheel may not be rolled when there is actually money upon it now.