Q&A: Tractate Shabbat 43a
Tractate Shabbat 43a
Question
Hello Rabbi, in Tractate Shabbat 43a—in Tosafot, s.v. “while they are still on it”—it seems possible to understand Rabbi Shimon’s position in two ways:
On the one hand, one could understand from Tosafot that Rabbi Shimon does not hold at all by the rule that since something was set aside during twilight, it remains set aside for the entire day, and that is why he permits the oil from a lamp that went out.
On the other hand, one could understand that Rabbi Shimon does in fact accept the rule of “since it was set aside,” but he limits the rule to cases where there was no intention to use the object after it had finished serving its function.
Is there a way to decide what Rabbi Shimon’s view is on this issue?
And a second question—
When Rabbi Yitzhak answers all those refutations with “this case is different because he needs its place,” it seems strange to me that the permission he gives for the prohibition is itself the very prohibition.
That is, if the prohibition is making use of a vessel for the sake of something that may not be moved, then this permission does not really address the problem at all.
Because in practice, every time I lift some vessel permissibly, I can use it to do the very act we came to prohibit.
I would be glad for an explanation on this point as well.
Thank you
Answer
I didn’t understand what this has to do with Tosafot. He says that according to Rabbi Shimon there is no rule of “since it was set aside” at all. Rabbi Akiva Eiger discusses the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda and raises two possibilities: whether they disagreed about the law of muktzeh itself or about the rule of “since it was set aside,” and this is an old discussion (see, for example, an overview here: https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/34453).
As for the second question, I didn’t understand it. If he needs the place of the vessel, then it is not for the sake of the item that may not be moved but for the sake of its place. And since he needs its place, he may already put it wherever he wants. By the way, it is not at all clear that the decree concerning vessels is part of the law of muktzeh. Simply speaking, it is a separate decree of Nehemiah ben Hacaliah, and that is why they permitted it for its own use or for its place—something we do not find in ordinary muktzeh. And perhaps this itself is what the Talmud meant when it said that we are dealing with a case where he needs its place, namely, that they were coming to say that this is the decree concerning vessels and not muktzeh. But that is just a side comment that occurred to me.