Q&A: Moving a Plant on the Sabbath
Moving a Plant on the Sabbath
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Sabbath 81b:
“Returning to the matter itself: Resh Lakish said: A pebble on which grass has grown may be used for wiping, and one who plucks from it on the Sabbath is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rav Pappi said: Learn from Resh Lakish that this pot is permitted to be moved. Rav Kahana challenged him: If they said so for a need, would they say so when there is no need? Abaye said: Since this pot has come to our hands, let us say something about it: If it had been resting on the ground and he placed it on pegs, he is liable for uprooting. If it had been resting on pegs and he placed it on the ground, he is liable for planting.”
According to Abaye’s words in the latter clause, moving the pebble / pot incurs a Torah-level prohibition, so the question arises: how did Resh Lakish permit this for wiping? Rashi says that indeed, despite Abaye’s words that one is “liable,” this is a rabbinic prohibition, and Resh Lakish permitted it because of human dignity. Maimonides disagrees and says that indeed in the latter clause one is liable on the Torah level, and the commentators there try to explain how the case in the first clause is different.
And my question is: couldn’t one simply say that in the first clause it is talking about a pebble that was resting on pegs, and what Resh Lakish needed to permit was because of the concern that one might pluck the grass, thus avoiding the difficulty?
Answer
It definitely seems to me that you can.
Beyond that, I thought that perhaps one could explain that even lifting the pebble in order to wipe is a case of unintended action involving an inevitable result that is not beneficial to him; if we assume that the wiping is done mainly on the dirt and not on the grass, then their detachment is an inevitable but unwanted result, and therefore prohibited only rabbinically. Whereas Abaye is speaking about intentional detachment, which is forbidden by Torah law. But that is a bit strained from several angles.
Discussion on Answer
Thank you.
Indeed, Rav Pappi’s statement makes my explanation strained. I thought about the muktzeh issue, but it seems to me that this is also a bit difficult, because in the worst case it is a utensil whose primary use is for prohibited activity, and moving it here is for its own use.
Why a utensil whose primary use is for prohibited activity? On the contrary, in my opinion this is muktzeh due to its intrinsic nature.
Now I think that your explanation is strained, because Abaye wanted to infer that it is permitted to move it and that there is no reaping involved. If it is on pegs, then that cannot be learned from there. True, one could say that this itself is what Rav Kahana added: that it is talking about pegs, and therefore it is only rabbinically prohibited, and they permitted it for a need. But then Rav Kahana would be leaving out the main point.
Still, the term “to move it” implies that this is not about plucking but about muktzeh, and then everything works out. But the medieval authorities there did not explain it that way.