Beitzah 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

And if it is so

that if one transgressed and baked, it is permitted to eat it on Shabbat

let it teach:

The beraita should state this halakha: that if one

transgressed and baked—

it is permitted,

since the tanna came to teach us what he should do so that he will be able to eat.

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Mattana said: The tanna

teaches only

a remedy involving permission—

he teaches it.

But

a remedy involving prohibition—

he does not teach it.

Come and hear: One who prepared an eruv tavshilin—

he may bake, cook, and insulate.

And if he wishes to eat his eruv

on Yom Tov, after completing the preparations for Shabbat

—he has permission to do so.

But if he

ate

his eruv

before he baked

or

before he insulated—

he may neither bake, nor cook, nor insulate, neither for himself nor for others.

Nor may others bake or cook for him.

But he may cook for Yom Tov, and if he leaves over—

he has left it over for Shabbat. Provided that he does not employ a ruse!

That is, he may not cook once for the needs of Yom Tov and then say that he needs to cook a second time for guests, when in fact he will do so for Shabbat.

And if he employed a ruse—

it is prohibited

to eat it on Shabbat.

This proves that food cooked without an eruv is prohibited to eat on Shabbat.

Rav Ashi said

to reject the proof:

What, from the case of

a ruse

for which they prohibited him to eat,

are you saying

that one may prove that food cooked without an eruv is prohibited to eat?!

But

the case of a ruse is different, for the Sages were more stringent with it than with

one who transgresses

intentionally.

For one who transgresses intentionally knows that he is a transgressor and will ultimately repent, and, moreover, no other people are misled by him. But one who employs a ruse will remain forever in his state of wrongdoing, because he thinks that he is doing something permitted, and he also causes others to act like him. In this way, the law of the eruv is uprooted; therefore, they were stringent with him and prohibited it.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Who is the author of this

beraita, which prohibits the food if he employed a ruse

? It is Ḥananya, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai,

who we find is stringent regarding the laws of the eruv; therefore, there is no proof from it that this is the halakha.

As it is taught in a beraita: Ḥananya says: Beit Shammai say: One may bake only if he has prepared an eruv with bread; one may cook only if he has prepared an eruv with a cooked dish; and one may insulate only if hot water had already been insulated on the eve of Yom Tov.

And Beit Hillel say: One prepares an eruv with a single cooked dish and does with it all that he requires.

Come and hear

a proof that the food becomes prohibited, from what we learned in tractate Terumot [2:3]:

One who tithes his produce on Shabbat,

thereby transgressing the rabbinic prohibition against preparing his produce:

If he did so unwittingly—

he may eat it; if intentionally—

he may not eat it.

This proves that it is prohibited to eat food that was prepared through a rabbinically prohibited act.

And we reject the proof:

No, it is necessary;

here we are dealing with one

who has other produce

that was prepared before Shabbat. He can eat the prepared produce, whereas here he cannot cook, and he would have nothing to eat at all if we prohibited him from eating what he cooked.

Come and hear: One who immerses his vessels on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly—

he may use them; if intentionally—

he may not use them.

And here too we reject the proof:

No, it is necessary, as he has other vessels,

utensils

available.

Alternatively, it is possible

for him to obtain vessels from his neighbors

on loan,

but people do not generally lend food.

Come and hear: One who cooks on Shabbat, if he did so unwittingly—

he may eat it; if intentionally—

he may not eat it.

And we reject the proof:

The prohibition

involved something

that

was done through the labor of

Shabbat,

which is prohibited by Torah law;

that is different.

It is not comparable to one who cooks without an eruv, who transgressed only a rabbinic prohibition.

We learned in our Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: Two cooked dishes,

and Beit Hillel say: One cooked dish.

And they agree that a fish and the egg upon it are considered two cooked dishes.

And we say:

The Mishna

is not in accordance with this tanna.

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree with regard to two cooked dishes—

that two dishes are required

for the eruv.

With regard to what do they disagree—

with regard to a fish and the egg upon it.

For Beit Shammai say:

This is only one cooked dish, and one requires

two cooked dishes. And Beit Hillel

say:

It is sufficient to have

one cooked dish

of this kind, since it is considered as two.

And they agree that if one crushed

the

egg and placed it into the fish, or if one crushed

the vegetable called

leeks and placed

it

into the fish—

they are two cooked dishes

according to everyone.

Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the tanna of our Mishna,

the tanna of our Mishna

and in accordance with Beit Hillel,

who hold that one cooked dish is sufficient.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he ate it or if it was lost—

he may not cook relying on it, etc.

Abaye said: We have established

as the halakha that if he has already

begun preparing his dough and his eruv was eaten—

he may complete the preparation.

Mishna:

If

Yom Tov

falls immediately after Shabbat—

Beit Shammai say: One immerses everything—

both a person who needs to purify himself in honor of Yom Tov and his vessels—

before Shabbat,

since immersion is considered an act of preparation, both for a person and for vessels.

And Beit Hillel say:

The

vessels

must be immersed

before Shabbat, whereas

the

person

may immerse himself even

on Shabbat.

And they agree,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

that one may interpose

water from the ritual bath on Shabbat

with regard to water

suitable for drinking that became impure, provided that it was placed

in a stone vessel

that is not susceptible to ritual impurity—

to purify it

through “planting”: by its interposition with the water of the ritual bath, the impure water becomes subsumed into the ritual-bath water and thereby becomes pure.

Since the water is placed in a stone vessel, which is not susceptible to ritual impurity, it follows that bringing it into contact with the ritual-bath water is solely for the purpose of subsuming the impure water into the ritual-bath water.

But one may not “immerse”

the impure water by placing it in a wooden vessel that requires immersion and immersing the vessel together with the water, so that the vessel becomes pure through the contact of the impure water with the ritual-bath water. The reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And one may immerse

on Yom Tov

from one level of sanctity to another and from one group to another.

The entire matter will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And the Gemara analyzes:

In any event, everyone agrees,

at least

that a vessel may not be

immersed on Shabbat.

What is the reason?