The Gemara in tractate Shabbat, on page forty-eight, folio side one, begins a discussion regarding the laws of items set aside and forbidden to move on the Sabbath. Reish Lakish posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan concerning wheat that a person placed in the ground but which has not yet taken root. He also asked about an egg placed under a chicken. The question is whether these items are considered set-aside and forbidden to move according to the view of Rabbi Shimon. While Rabbi Shimon is generally known for his lenient stance on the laws of set-aside items, the question here is whether he applies a prohibition when a person has actively pushed an item away with his hands. By planting the wheat or placing the egg under the chicken, the person has demonstrated that he is no longer interested in using them for food, which might constitute a deliberate act of setting them aside.
Rabbi Yochanan replied that according to Rabbi Shimon, there is no prohibition of set-aside items except in a case like the oil in a lamp while it is burning. The initial understanding of the Gemara is that for Rabbi Shimon to prohibit an item, it must meet two criteria: it must be set aside for a ritual purpose, such as the commandment of the Sabbath lamp, and it must be set aside due to a prohibition, as removing the oil while the lamp is lit would constitute the forbidden act of extinguishing. Rashi explains that this double requirement—being designated for a ritual and being subject to a prohibition—is what causes a person to remove the item from his mind entirely. Since the wheat in the ground and the egg under the chicken do not involve a ritual or a prohibition like extinguishing, they should not be considered set-aside.
However, the Gemara challenges this by asking if Rabbi Shimon truly requires both conditions. An external teaching, a brayta, discusses a Sukkah that was roofed according to the law and adorned with decorations such as woven cloths, picturesque sheets, nuts, peaches, almonds, pomegranates, grape clusters, wreaths of wheat, and bottles of wine or oil. The law states that one is forbidden to make use of these decorations until the conclusion of the final Yom Tov. This prohibition extends through Shemini Atzeret because the decorations were set aside during the twilight period between the festival of Sukkah and the final day. Unless a person made an explicit condition before the festival that he did not intend to set them aside, they remain forbidden. The Gemara notes that these decorations are forbidden even on Chol HaMoed, the intermediate days of the festival, even though there is no prohibition against moving them then. This implies that being set aside for a ritual purpose alone is sufficient to create a prohibition, even without an accompanying prohibition like extinguishing.
To prove that this ruling follows the view of Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara cites a teaching from Rav Chiyya bar Yosef presented before Rabbi Yochanan. The teaching states that one may not take wood from a hut on Yom Tov if it was part of the roofing, as using it would constitute dismantling a structure. However, if the wood fell on its own, Rabbi Shimon permits using it. He argues that an item is only forbidden while it is part of the structure, but once it falls, it is no longer set aside. Crucially, the teaching notes that everyone, including Rabbi Shimon, agrees that if the roofing was part of a Sukkah used for the ritual of the festival, it remains forbidden even if it falls. This is because it was set aside for a ritual purpose. This confirms that for Rabbi Shimon, being set aside for a ritual is enough to prohibit an item for the duration of that ritual.
The Gemara therefore refines Rabbi Yochanan’s earlier statement. When he said that Rabbi Shimon only prohibits oil in a lamp, he did not mean that case exclusively. Rather, he meant cases similar to the oil in a lamp. Just as the oil is set aside for the duration of the ritual of lighting, so too are Sukkah decorations or roofing set aside for the duration of the festival. The prohibition lasts as long as the ritual purpose is active. In the case of the lamp, the ritual ends when the flame goes out, at which point Rabbi Shimon allows the oil to be used. In the case of the Sukkah, the ritual purpose lasts for all seven days, so the items remain set aside for that entire period.
The discussion then moves to food items that are intentionally pushed away. Rabbi Yehuda, speaking in the name of Shmuel, states that for Rabbi Shimon, the only food items considered set-aside are dried figs and raisins that were placed on a roof to dry. Because these items become inedible during the drying process, a person who puts them on the roof has actively pushed them away from his mind. Even if they happen to become edible again during the Sabbath, they remain forbidden because they were not edible during the twilight period at the start of the Sabbath. While a person anticipates that a lamp will eventually go out, he cannot be certain that the sun will dry the fruit sufficiently by the Sabbath. Therefore, the act of placing them on the roof is a definitive act of setting them aside.
The Gemara questions whether this rule applies only to figs and raisins. A brayta suggests that if a person was eating figs or grapes and decided to put the leftovers on the roof to dry, they become forbidden unless he specifically designates them for use before the Sabbath. The same rule applies to peaches, quinces, and all other types of fruit. The Gemara asks who the author of this brayta is. If it were Rabbi Yehuda, the ruling would be obvious, as he is strict even about items that were not actively pushed away. Therefore, it must be Rabbi Shimon, proving that he prohibits any fruit that a person has actively pushed away by placing it on a roof to dry. The Gemara clarifies that even if the brayta follows Rabbi Yehuda, it still teaches a novelty: even if a person was already eating the fruit before the Sabbath, the act of moving it to the roof is considered a total removal of the item from his mind, requiring a new designation if he wishes to eat it on the Sabbath.
Next, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi asked his father, Rebbe, about the status of unripe dates placed in palm-leaf baskets to ripen. These dates are barely edible in their current state. Rebbe replied that according to Rabbi Shimon, only dried figs and raisins are considered set-aside. Since the unripe dates are still somewhat edible, they are not considered to have been pushed away entirely. This exchange suggests that Rebbe himself might rule like Rabbi Shimon. However, the Gemara challenges this by citing a ruling from Masechet Beitza regarding animals. There, Rebbe distinguishes between domesticated animals, which are on a person's mind, and wild animals, which are not. He rules that wild animals are set-aside and may not be provided with water on Yom Tov. This indicates that Rebbe does hold by the laws of set-aside items, unlike Rabbi Shimon.
The Gemara offers three possible reconciliations. First, perhaps Rebbe views wild animals as being "pushed away" in the same way as dried figs and raisins, meaning his view is consistent with Rabbi Shimon. Second, perhaps Rebbe does not actually rule like Rabbi Shimon but was merely explaining Rabbi Shimon's position to his son. Third, it is possible that Rebbe personally agrees with Rabbi Shimon that there is no such thing as a set-aside item, and his discussion in Masechet Beitza was merely an attempt to define the categories of "wild" and "domesticated" according to the logic of the Rabbi Yehuda, who does hold by those laws.
Finally, Rabbah bar bar Chana reported in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the law follows Rabbi Shimon. This is challenged by a story of an elder who asked Rabbi Yochanan about moving a chicken nest on the Sabbath. Rabbi Yochanan prohibited it, explaining that the nest is a base for the chicken, which is a set-aside item. This seems to contradict the idea that Rabbi Yochanan follows the lenient view of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara resolves this by explaining that the nest contained a dead chick. A dead animal is considered set-aside even by Rabbi Shimon because it is no longer fit for human consumption and, if it died on the Sabbath, it was not designated for dogs before the Sabbath began. Alternatively, the nest might have contained an egg with a chick still inside it. Such an egg is considered "newly created" and is forbidden by everyone, including Rabbi Shimon. Thus, the nest became a base for a forbidden item, which even Rabbi Shimon would prohibit moving.
When Rabbi Yitzchak bar Rabbi Yosef arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he brought a different report: that Rabbi Yochanan actually rules like Rabbi Yehuda, while Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi rules like Rabbi Shimon. Rav Yosef noted that this explains why Rabbah bar bar Chana used the phrasing "they said the law follows Rabbi Shimon," implying that others held this view but Rabbi Yochanan himself did not. Abaye asked Rav Yosef if he had not already deduced Rabbi Yochanan's strict stance from a story involving Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Assi. In that story, a candelabra fell onto Rabbi Assi's robe, and he refused to move it. Since Rabbi Assi was a student of Rabbi Yochanan, his behavior should reflect his teacher's ruling that even an extinguished lamp remains set-aside. Rav Yosef rejected this proof, noting that a candelabra is different from a simple lamp. Because people designate a fixed place for a candelabra, it is considered set-aside by virtue of its location. Therefore, even Rabbi Shimon might agree that it cannot be moved, and the story does not prove Rabbi Yochanan's general ruling on set-aside items.