QUESTION: The Gemara records a dispute among Amora'im whether Rebbi Shimon -- who permits one to handle Muktzah -- permits one to move an animal that died on Shabbos or Yom Tov (such as to feed it to a dog).

The Gemara (Shabbos 46b, Beitzah 30b) teaches that Rebbi Shimon permits one to handle Muktzah Machmas Isur -- such as the oil of a candle that was burning during Bein ha'Shemashos -- only when he was expecting the item to become permitted on Shabbos or Yom Tov (such as when he was "Yoshev u'Metzapeh" during Bein ha'Shemashos, eagerly waiting for the candle to become extinguished and the oil to become permissible). If the candle is large enough that it can burn throughout all of Shabbos, then even Rebbi Shimon agrees that it is Muktzah and is prohibited because the person did not anticipate that it would go out on Shabbos. (For this reason, the Gemara in Shabbos (46b) says that Rebbi Shimon agrees that a Bechor is Muktzah even if it gets a Mum on Shabbos, because one did not expect it to get a Mum and did not expect that a Mumcheh would examine the animal and permit it on Shabbos (see Tosfos, Beitzah 26a).)

According to the Gemara there, why should Rebbi Shimon permit an animal that dies on Shabbos? The owner was not waiting for the animal to die during Bein ha'Shemashos, and during Bein ha'Shemos (of Shabbos) the animal was forbidden to be slaughtered. The animal should be Muktzah even according to Rebbi Shimon.

(a) RASHI (DH she'Meisu) implies that even those who permit the animal permit it only on Yom Tov. On Shabbos, they agree that it is Muktzah Machmas Isur. On Yom Tov, the animal is not Muktzah Machmas Isur because one may slaughter it. The only reason to prohibit an animal that dies on Yom Tov is because it becomes Nolad, a new object which did not exist until now, but Rebbi Shimon permits Nolad. The opinion that prohibits an animal that dies on Yom Tov maintains that Rebbi Shimon agrees with Rebbi Yehudah in certain cases that Nolad is prohibited (such as when the object attains a completely new status, as Tosfos says on 2a, DH Ka Salka Da'atach). This also seems to be the opinion of Tosfos in Eruvin (40a, DH Ha).

However, the Gemara in Shabbos (45b) quotes the opinion that Rebbi Shimon permits an animal that dies, even though the Gemara is discussing only Shabbos and not Yom Tov. Why does Rebbi Shimon permit the animal? The answer is that the Gemara is discussing animals that are not Muktzah Machmas Isur because they have a permitted use on Shabbos when alive, such as a chick which children use as a plaything (as Rabeinu Yosef in Tosfos there (DH Hacha) says).

(b) The RASHBA here explains that Rebbi Shimon permits even an animal that dies even on Shabbos. The reason why the dead animal is permitted even though the owner did not have his mind on it at the onset of Shabbos is because he did not remove his mind from it by actively rendering it unusable (he was not "Docheh b'Yadayim"). Rather, it was unusable merely due to its natural state. The requirement that one have specific intent to use the object on Shabbos ("Yoshev u'Metzapeh") applies to an object which was actively excluded from Shabbos use, such as when one lights an oil lamp and thereby renders the oil Muktzah Machmas Isur.

(According to this explanation, why is a Bechor which became blemished on Shabbos prohibited according to Rebbi Shimon, if the owner did not actively exclude it from use? Perhaps a Bechor is prohibited for a different reason: a Bechor is considered Muktzah even according to Rebbi Shimon because it is so far removed from the state of being usable on Shabbos (because the owner does not know if it will get a Mum, and even when he considers that the Bechor might get a Mum he does not know if he will be able to find a Mumcheh to examine it, and even when he assumes that he will find a Mumcheh to examine it he does not know whether the Mumcheh will declare it permitted; see TOSFOS to Shabbos 46b, DH Mi Yeimar).)

(c) The RASHBA later (30b) suggests another reason for why an animal that dies on Shabbos is permitted according to Rebbi Shimon. Since it is common for animals to die, one anticipates the possibility that his animal will die and thus he is considered to have been "Yoshev u'Metzapeh." This also seems to be the opinion of Tosfos in Shabbos (45b, DH Hacha).

OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes that the Mishnah prohibits moving only animals of Kodshim that die on Shabbos (just as the other case in the Mishnah refers to something that is Kadosh -- i.e. Chalah). The Gemara asks that according to the opinion that animals that die on Shabbos are prohibited to be handled, even an animal of Chulin (which is not Kadosh) should be prohibited. Why does the Mishnah say that only animals of Kodshim are prohibited?

The Gemara answers that the Mishnah refers to an animal which is "Mesukenes" (mortally ill) and its ruling is therefore correct "according to everyone" ("Divrei ha'Kol"). This implies that Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah agree that an animal that is Mesukenes is not Muktzah when it dies on Shabbos.

If, according to this opinion, Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah agree that healthy animals that die on Shabbos are prohibited, and they also agree that a Mesukenes that dies on Shabbos is permitted, then in what case do they argue? The Gemara in Shabbos (106b) explicitly states with regard to an animal that dies on Shabbos that Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah argue!

(a) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR writes that according to the text of the Gemara which includes the words "v'Divrei ha'Kol" ("according to everyone"), the argument between Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi Yehudah involves neither a healthy animal nor a dying animal, but rather a sick animal. Rebbi Shimon permits a sick animal that dies on Shabbos, and Rebbi Yehudah prohibits it. The Ba'al ha'Me'or says that this is the opinion of the RIF.

(b) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR himself maintains that the words "v'Divrei ha'Kol" should be omitted from the text of the Gemara. In the case of a Mesukenes that dies on Shabbos, it is only Rebbi Shimon who permits the animal, and not Rebbi Yehudah. The Gemara is not explaining the Mishnah in accordance with the view of Rebbi Yehudah. (This also seems to be the Girsa of RASHI (DH Hacha b'Mai) and other Rishonim.)

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that the Chachamim told Rebbi Tarfon that Chalah that became Tamei may not be moved on Yom Tov.

Why is Chalah Teme'ah considered Muktzah? Even though a Kohen is not permitted to eat Chalah Teme'ah, it has a useful purpose on Shabbos or Yom Tov: it is fit to be fed to dogs. The Gemara in Pesachim (32a) states that one may feed Terumah Teme'ah which is Chametz to a dog on Pesach, and the same applies to Chalah Teme'ah.

RASHI (DH Chalah) answers that one may not give Chalah Teme'ah to a dog on Yom Tov because he thereby fulfills the Mitzvah to destroy Kodshim that became Tamei. One is not permitted to destroy Kodshim Teme'im on Yom Tov, as the Gemara in Shabbos (23b) teaches. The Mitzvah to burn Kodshim Teme'im does not override the prohibition against kindling a fire on Yom Tov (when the fire is not made for the sake of food preparation).

However, the prohibition against destroying Kodshim Teme'im on Yom Tov applies only when one does so by kindling a fire. Since the kindling of the fire involves the transgression of an Isur d'Oraisa, one may not destroy Kodshim Teme'im on Yom Tov by burning them. Why, though, may one not feed Chalah Teme'ah to a dog on Yom Tov? The act of feeding Chalah Teme'ah to a dog involves no Isur d'Oraisa, and thus it should be permitted.

(a) RASHI explains that the fact that it is a Mitzvah to destroy Kodshim Teme'im makes the act of destroying it a "significant act," which is considered a Melachah on Yom Tov ("Ach'shevei l'Melachah"). Since the Torah gives this act a high level of significance, even when one destroys the Kodshim Teme'im in a manner that does not constitute an actual Melachah (such as by feeding it to a dog), it is included in the category of "Melachah" prohibited on Yom Tov.

(b) TOSFOS (DH v'Al) disagrees with Rashi. The reason why one may not give Chalah Teme'ah to his dog on Yom Tov is because there is a specific Mitzvah to destroy Chalah Teme'ah by burning it. (Even though the verse does not specify that the Chalah must be burned, it mentions burning with regard to Kodshim, and Chalah is derived from Kodshim.) Therefore, Chalah Teme'ah is Muktzah because it has no use. It must be burned and it may not be fed to a dog. (Tosfos points out that only Terumah Teme'ah which is Chametz on Pesach (and which must be destroyed) may be fed to a dog.) (See also Insights to Shabbos 126:1.)