## Shabbat Daf 46a

###### Shabbat 46a:1
[Shabbat 46a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/46a:1)

מוּתָּר לִנְטוֹתָהּ וּמוּתָּר לְפָרְקָה בְּשַׁבָּת. אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּשֶׁל חוּלְיוֹת. אִי הָכִי, מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּשָׁרֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**it is permitted to assemble it and it is permitted to dismantle it on Shabbat.** If a permanent object like that one may be assembled on Shabbat and there is no concern for the prohibition of building, all the more so it should not be considered building and dismantling in the case of a candelabrum. **Rather, Abaye said:** Here it is referring to a special candelabrum made **of joints,** removable parts, and there is concern lest it fall and break into its component parts when it is moved, and one may come to reassemble it, which would be tantamount to crafting a vessel on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: **If so,** if it is referring to that type of candelabrum, **what is the reason** for the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who permits** moving the candelabrum?


###### Shabbat 46a:2
[Shabbat 46a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/46a:2)

מַאי ״חוּלְיוֹת״ — כְּעֵין חוּלְיוֹת, דְּאִית בַּהּ חִידְקֵי. הִלְכָּךְ: חוּלְיוֹת, בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה — אֲסוּרָה לְטַלְטְלָהּ. גְּדוֹלָה נָמֵי דְּאִית בָּהּ חִידְקֵי — גְּזֵירָה אַטּוּ גְּדוֹלָה דְּחוּלְיוֹת. כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּקְטַנָּה דְּאִית בָּהּ חִידְקֵי: מָר סָבַר גָּזְרִינַן, וּמָר סָבַר לָא גָּזְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara replies: It is not referring to a candelabrum that can actually be dismantled. Rather, **what** is the meaning of **joints? Similar to joints,** i.e., **there are grooves in it** and it appears as if it is made of different components. **Therefore,** in summary: With regard to a candelabrum made of actual **joints, both** one that is **large** and one that is **small, it is prohibited to move it. In addition,** a **large** candelabrum **that has grooves,** everyone agrees that it is prohibited to move it by rabbinic **decree,** which was issued **due to** a **large** candelabrum made of **joints.** Because it is common for a large candelabrum to be made of joints, if one saw someone carrying a large, grooved candelabrum, he would mistakenly assume that it had joints due to the similarity between them, and would mistakenly permit carrying a large candelabrum actually composed of joints. **Where** Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish **disagree** is **in** the case of a **small** candelabrum **that has grooves. This Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **holds** that **we issue a decree** prohibiting moving even a small, grooved candelabrum due to a large one. **And this Sage,** Reish Lakish, **holds** that **we do not issue a decree.** Because a small candelabrum is not typically made of joints, everyone realizes that the grooves are strictly decorative.


###### Shabbat 46a:3
[Shabbat 46a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/46a:3)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתָם מִשְׁנָה. וּתְנַן, מוּכְנִי שֶׁלָּהּ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא נִשְׁמֶטֶת — אֵין חִיבּוּר לָהּ, וְאֵין נִמְדֶּדֶת עִמָּהּ, וְאֵין מַצֶּלֶת עִמָּהּ בְּאֹהֶל הַמֵּת, וְאֵין גּוֹרְרִין אוֹתָהּ בְּשַׁבָּת בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ מָעוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say that** the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? **Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan state** the following principle: **The *halakha* is in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned** in the mishna that discusses ritual impurity of a wagon with a detachable undercarriage: The wagon’s **undercarriage, when it is detachable** from the wagon, it is **not** considered **connected to it** and they are considered independent units as far as the *halakhot* of ritual impurity are concerned. **And it is not measured with it.** This refers to calculating the volume of forty *se’a*, as a vessel with a volume larger than forty *se’a* does not have the legal status of a vessel and cannot become ritually impure. **And** the undercarriage likewise **does not protect** together **with** the wagon **in a tent** over **the corpse.** A large wagon is considered a tent in and of itself, and the vessels inside the wagon do not become impure if the wagon is over a dead body. However, the undercarriage is not included with the wagon in this regard. If a hole in the wagon is sealed by the undercarriage, it is not considered to be sealed with regard to preventing ritual impurity. **And,** likewise, **one may not pull** the wagon **on Shabbat when there is money upon it.**


###### Shabbat 46a:4
[Shabbat 46a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/46a:4)

הָא אֵין עָלֶיהָ מָעוֹת — שַׁרְיָא, וְאַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲווֹ עָלֶיהָ בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת? אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: תְּהֵא מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ עָלֶיהָ מָעוֹת כׇּל בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁבּוֹר דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By inference: **If there is not money on it,** one is **permitted** to move the wagon **even though there was** money **on it at twilight.** An object that was set aside at twilight is set aside for the entire Shabbat. In this mishna, moving the wagon is permitted. Clearly, the unattributed mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that there is no prohibition of set-aside. Why, then, did Rabbi Yoḥanan, who always rules in accordance with an unattributed mishna, not rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? **Rabbi Zeira said: Let our mishna** apply only to a case **in which there was no money on** the wagon **throughout** the entire duration of **twilight.** This strained interpretation is accepted **so as not to contradict** and reject **Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement.**


###### Shabbat 46a:5
[Shabbat 46a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/46a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַךְ רַבִּי לִדְיוֹסְפָרָא, וְהוֹרָה בִּמְנוֹרָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּנֵר. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הוֹרָה בִּמְנוֹרָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּנֵר — לְהֶיתֵּרָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא: הוֹרָה בִּמְנוֹרָהּ לְאִיסּוּרָא — וּכְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּנֵר לְהֶיתֵּרָא. תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One time, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **went to** the town of **Deyosfera, and issued a ruling with regard to a candelabrum in accordance with** the ruling that **Rabbi Shimon** made **with regard to an** oil **lamp.** This description is insufficiently clear, therefore **a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Does this mean that **he issued a ruling in** the case of a candelabrum, **like** the ruling that **Rabbi Shimon** made **in** the case of **an** oil **lamp, to permit** moving it? **Or, perhaps, he issued a ruling in** the case of **a candelabrum to prohibit** moving it, **and** in another case he ruled **in accordance with** the ruling that **Rabbi Shimon** made **in** the case of **an** oil **lamp, to permit** moving it. There was no resolution found to this dilemma and therefore it **stands** unresolved.


###### Shabbat 46a:6
[Shabbat 46a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/46a:6)

רַב מַלְכִּיָּא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי וְטַילְטֵל שְׁרָגָא, וְאִיקְּפַד רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי גָּלִילָאָה אִיקְּלַע לְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, טַילְטֵל שְׁרָגָא וְאִיקְּפַד רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ כִּי אִיקְּלַע לְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הֲוָה מְטַלְטֵל שְׁרָגָא. כִּי אִיקְּלַע לְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא הֲוָה מְטַלְטֵל שְׁרָגָא. מָה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סְבִירָא לֵיהּ — לֶיעְבַּד כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אִי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ — לֶיעְבַּד כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן! — לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וּמִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ דְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הוּא דְּלָא הֲוָה עָבֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is told that **Rav Malkiya happened** to come **to the house of Rabbi Simlai and moved an** extinguished oil **lamp, and Rabbi Simlai became angry,** as in his opinion it is prohibited to move an oil lamp because it is set-aside. Likewise, **Rabbi Yosei the Galilean happened** to come **to the place of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and moved an** oil **lamp, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, became angry.** The Gemara also relates that **Rabbi Abbahu, when he happened** to come **to the place of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he would move an** oil **lamp.** However, **when he happened** to come **to the place of Rabbi Yoḥanan, he would not move an** oil **lamp.** The Gemara wondered: **Whichever** way **you** look at it there is a difficulty. **If he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, let him act in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda** everywhere and refrain from moving the lamp. **And if he holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, let him act in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon** everywhere and move the oil lamp. The Gemara answers: **Actually,** it can be explained that Rabbi Abbahu **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon; however, in deference to Rabbi Yoḥanan he did not act** accordingly, so as not to act contrary to his ruling in the place where he was the authority.


###### Shabbat 46a:7
[Shabbat 46a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/46a:7)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שְׁרָגָא דְּמִשְׁחָא שְׁרֵי לְטַלְטוֹלַהּ, דְּנַפְטָא — אֲסִיר לְטַלְטוֹלַהּ. רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: דְּנַפְטָא נָמֵי שְׁרֵי לְטַלְטוֹלַהּ, דְּהוֹאִיל וַחֲזֵי לְכַסּוֹת בֵּיהּ מָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the *halakhot* of moving lamps on Shabbat, **Rav Yehuda said:** With regard to **an** extinguished **oil lamp, it is permitted to move it,** whereas a **naphtha** lamp, **it is prohibited to move it.** Since the smell of naphtha is unpleasant, the lamp is used exclusively for lighting. Therefore, moving it is prohibited. **Rabba and Rav Yosef both said:** With regard to **a naphtha** lamp, **too, it is permitted to move it.**


###### Shabbat 46a:8
[Shabbat 46a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shabbat/r/46a:8)

רַב אַוְיָא אִיקְּלַע לְבֵי רָבָא. הֲוָה מְאִיסָן (בֵּי) כַּרְעֵיהּ בְּטִינָא. אִתֵּיב אַפּוּרְיָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אִיקְּפַד רָבָא, בְּעָא לְצַעוֹרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי טַעְמָא רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ שְׁרָגָא דְנַפְטָא נָמֵי שְׁרֵי לְטַלְטוֹלַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוֹאִיל וְחַזְיָא לְכַסּוֹיֵי בַּהּ מָנָא. אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, כׇּל צְרוֹרוֹת שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר מִטַּלְטְלִין, הוֹאִיל וְחַזְיִין לְכַסּוֹיֵי בְּהוּ מָנָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא אִיכָּא תּוֹרַת כְּלִי עָלֶיהָ. הָנֵי לֵיכָּא תּוֹרַת כְּלִי עֲלֵיהֶן. מִי לָא תַּנְיָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Avya happened** to come **to Rava’s house. His feet were dirty with clay** and **he put them on the bed before Rava. Rava became angry** at him for dirtying the bed and, therefore, **sought to torment him** with questions that he could not answer. Rava **said to him: What is the reason** that **Rabba and Rav Yosef both said** that with regard to **a naphtha lamp, too, that it is permitted to move it?** Rav Avya **said to him: Since it is suitable to cover a vessel with it.** Rava **said to him: But if that is so, all pebbles** in the yard **may** also **be carried** *ab initio* on Shabbat, **since it is suitable to cover a vessel with them.** Rav Avya **said to him:** There is a distinction between these cases. **This,** the lamp, **the status of a vessel** applies **to it** and there are leniencies that apply to vessels with regard to the *halakhot* of set-aside. **These,** the pebbles, **the status of a vessel does not** apply **to it,** as they are a raw material. Carrying them is prohibited unless designated for a specific purpose before Shabbat. **Was it not taught** in a *baraita* that