Shabbos 142 – שבת קמב

Click here to view text of Daf (may be minimized to view alongside player)

Diagram 1   Diagram 2   Diagram 3   Diagram 4

Play Audio Only

Download Audio

Download Video

Today’s Daf Yomi Question:

The Gemara concludes that he rock was needed to plug an opening in the basket.  Generally, the allowance to move Muktza (indirectly) is only for the sake of a permissible object etc. but not for the sake of using the Muktza itself.  Why in this case may he move the rock for the sake of its own use?


4 thoughts on “Shabbos 142 – שבת קמב

    • But apparently in our case the rock is not considered part of the wall (perhaps it’s not properly fastened); otherwise why does the basket require the presence of permissible fruit to allow its carrying.

      • I noticed the way your learning the gemora [in the audio] that we’re still understanding that its full of fruit. but you explained that it was still for the need of the fruit to hold them in place. But perhaps at the point that we say it’s needed for the kli there is no need anymore to say that’s full of fruit [the mishna never said it was, only the gemora because of the question that the kli is a bosis which would be answered once we say that it’s part of the kli] and that’s the way it seems from shulchan oruch {shin tes 2:3}

        • Indeed, there seems to be two approaches in the Rishonim to this Gemara – the Ramba”m seems to rearm like you, that the rock has become part of the kli. The Me’iri learns that it is not part of the kli, but considered for the benefit f the fruit, to prevent them from falling out. This allows us to consider the moving of the rock as a an act to benefit the permissible object. Nevertheless we don’t consider it as though he is moving the Muktza for the sake of using the Muktza, since it is not being used on its own, rather merely as a support of the basket and is considered secondary and batel to the basket.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *