Tractate Shabbat Mag 1'
Shalom Rabbi in Tractate Shabbat, page 34, page 1 – in the Tosafot speech beginning with ‘A’dan Aleiyo’.
It seems that Rabbi Shimon's method can be understood in two ways:
On the one hand, it can be understood from the Tosafot that Rabbi Shimon does not believe at all that the oil from the candle is to be used for a whole day, and for you, he permits the oil from the candle to be used for a period of time.
On the other hand, it is understandable that Rabbi Shimon's opinion is that he does believe that a demigo is a deed, but he reserves the rule for cases in which there was no intention to use the object after it had completed its function.
Is there a way to determine Rabbi Shimon's opinion on this matter?
And a second question –
When Rabbi Yitzchak excuses all the "I am the one" in "Deshani Haka D'Tshiriki Lemko" (The place where the "I am" is needed)
It seems strange to me that the permission he gives to the prohibition is the prohibition itself.
In other words, if the prohibition is to use a tool for something that is not permissible, this permit does not deal with the problem at all.
After all, every time I pick up some tool with permission, I can use it to do the very thing we came to prohibit.
I would be happy to explain this issue as well.
thanks
I didn't understand what the connection is with Tos. He says that the Rashi has no migo datkatsai at all. The Reka discusses the dispute between the Rashi and the Riya and raises two possibilities: whether they share the law of muktza or the law of migo datkatsai, and the things are ancient (see, for example, a review here: https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/34453).
I didn't understand the second question. If he needs the place of the vessel, then it is not for the sake of the thing that is not taken away, but for the sake of its place. And since he needs it for its place, he can put it wherever he wants. By the way, it is not clear that the removal of vessels is a muktza law at all. Simply put, this is a separate ruling by Nehemiah ben Haklia, and therefore they allowed for the sake of its body and place what we did not find in a regular muktza. And perhaps this is what the Gemara actually meant when it said that it is necessary for its place, when they came to say that this is a removal of vessels and not a muktza. But this is just a comment that occurred to me.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer