Study Shabbat folio 30A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
גמ׳ מדקתני סיפא חייב — שמע מינה רבי יהודה היא. רישא במאי עסקינן? אי בחולה שיש בו סכנה — ״מותר״ מיבעי ליה. ואי בחולה שאין בו סכנה ״חייב חטאת״ מיבעי ליה!
Talmud: From the fact that it was taught in the latter clause of the Mishnah that one who extinguishes a flame on Shabbat is liable, conclude from it that this Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda, who holds that one who performs a prohibited labor on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering even if it is a labor that is not necessary for its own sake [melakha she’eina tzerikha legufa]. In the Mishnah, one does not extinguish the flame to achieve the product produced by extinguishing it. He does so to prevent the light from shining. If so, with what is the first clause of the Mishnah dealing? If it is referring to one who extinguished the flame due to a critically ill person, the term exempt is imprecise. It should have said permitted, as it is permitted even ab initio to perform a prohibited labor on Shabbat in a case of danger. And if it is speaking about a non-critically ill person, why is one who extinguished the flame exempt? It should have said that one is liable to bring a sin-offering.
לעולם בחולה שיש בו סכנה, ובדין הוא דליתני ״מותר״, ואיידי דבעי למתני סיפא ״חייב״, תנא נמי רישא ״פטור״. והדתני רבי אושעיא אם בשביל החולה שיישן לא יכבה, ואם כבה, פטור אבל אסור! ההיא בחולה שאין בו סכנה, ורבי שמעון היא.
The Talmud replies: Actually, the first clause was referring to a critically ill person, and it should have taught that it is permitted. And since the latter clause of the Mishnah had to teach that one is liable, in the first clause too, it taught employing the opposite term, exempt, so that the Mishnah would maintain stylistic uniformity. The halakha is, indeed, that not only is one exempt if he extinguished a light for a critically ill person, it is even permitted to do so ab initio. The Talmud asks: What of that which R' Oshaya taught: If one wants to extinguish a flame on Shabbat for a sick person so he can sleep, he may not extinguish it, and if he extinguished it, he is not liable after the fact, but ab initio he is prohibited to do so? The Talmud answers: This is not similar, as that baraita is referring to a non-critically ill person and it is in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon, who said that one who performs a prohibited labor not necessary for its own sake is exempt. Our Mishnah is referring to a critically ill person.