Beitzah 17b — the Talmud in English

And if it is so

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

let him teach:

in the beraita this halakha, that if he

transgressed and baked—

it is permitted,

for 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

only

teaches a remedy of permission—

he teaches it.

But

a remedy of prohibition—

he does not teach it.

Come and hear: One who set aside an eruv tavshilin—

this person may bake, cook, and insulate.

And if he wished to eat his eruv

on Yom Tov, after he completed the preparation for Shabbat—

the authority is in his hand.

And if he

ate

his eruv

before he baked

or

before he insulated—

this person may not bake, cook, or insulate, neither for himself nor for others.

And others may not bake or cook for him.

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

he left it over for Shabbat. But provided that he does not resort to a ruse!

That he should not cook once for the need of Yom Tov, and afterward say that he needs to cook a second time for guests, while in practice he will do this for Shabbat.

And if he resorted to a ruse—

it is prohibited

to eat it on Shabbat.

And it is demonstrated that one who cooks without an eruv—the food is prohibited to eat on Shabbat.

Rav Ashi said

to reject the proof:

What, from

a ruse

that they prohibited him to eat, are you

saying

to prove concerning one who cooks without an eruv that it is prohibited to eat!?

But

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 eventually repent, and other people are not misled by him. But the one who resorts to a ruse will remain forever in his corruption, because he thinks that he is doing something permitted, and he also causes others to stumble so that they will do like him; and thus the law of eruv is uprooted, and therefore they were stringent with him, prohibiting it to him.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Who is this

the beraita that prohibits the food if he resorted to a ruse?—

It is Hananiah, and according to Beit Shammai,

for we find that he is stringent in the laws of eruv, and there is no proof from it that this is the halakha.

For it was taught in a beraita: Hananiah says: Beit Shammai say: One may bake only if he set aside bread, one may cook only if he set aside a cooked dish, and one may insulate only if hot food had been insulated from before Yom Tov.

And Beit Hillel say: He sets aside an eruv with one cooked dish and does with it all that he requires.

Come and hear

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

One who tithes his produce on Shabbat,

and transgressed the rabbinic prohibition of preparing his produce:

Unintentionally—

he may eat; intentionally—

he may not eat.

And it is demonstrated that it is prohibited to eat food that was prepared through a rabbinically prohibited act.

And we reject the proof:

It is necessary,

here it is speaking

of one who has other produce

that was prepared before Shabbat, and he can eat from the prepared produce; but here he cannot cook, and he has nothing at all to eat if we prohibit for him what he cooked.

Come and hear: One who immerses his vessels on Shabbat, unintentionally—

he may use them; intentionally—

he may not use them.

And here too we reject:

It is necessary, that he has vessels

other

ones.

Alternatively, it is possible

for him to obtain vessels from his neighbors

on loan,

but people do not customarily lend food.

Come and hear: One who cooks on Shabbat, unintentionally—

he may eat; intentionally—

he may not eat.

And we reject:

The prohibition

concerning something

that

was made through the labor of

Shabbat,

which is from the Torah,

is different.

And it is not similar 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 concerning a fish and the egg upon it that they are two cooked dishes.

And we say:

The Mishna—

is not in accordance with this tanna.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree concerning two cooked dishes—

that it is necessary

to have two cooked dishes for the eruv.

Concerning what did they disagree—

concerning a fish and the egg upon it.

For Beit Shammai say:

This is only one cooked dish, and it is necessary to have

two cooked dishes. And Beit Hillel

say:

It is sufficient with

one cooked dish

of this kind, since it is considered as two.

And they agree that if he crumbled

crushed

an egg and placed it into the fish, or if he crushed

the vegetable called

kappalot and placed

it

into the fish—

they are two cooked dishes

according to everyone.

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

the tanna of our Mishna,

and according to Beit Hillel,

who are satisfied with one cooked dish.

We learned in our Mishna:

If he ate it or it was lost—

this person may not cook on its account, etc.

Abaye said: We have taken it as established

as the halakha: If he had already

begun his dough and his eruv was eaten—

he completes it.

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 preparation, both with regard to a person and with regard to vessels.

And Beit Hillel say:

The

vessels

need to be immersed

before Shabbat, but

the

person

may immerse even

on Shabbat.

And they agree,

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel,

that one makes contact

with the water of the ritual bath on Shabbat,

the water

fit for drinking that became impure, on condition that it was placed

in a stone vessel

that does not contract impurity—

to purify it

through “planting,” for through their making contact they are nullified into the water of the ritual bath, becoming like the water of the ritual bath, and they thereby become pure.

For since they are placed in a stone vessel, which does not contract impurity, it follows that their entire bringing and making contact with the water of the ritual bath is only for the purpose of nullifying the impure water into the water of the ritual bath.

But one does not “immerse”

the impure water by placing it in a wooden vessel requiring immersion, and bringing it in together with the water so that it will become pure along with the making contact of the impure water with the water of the ritual bath. And the reason will be explained in the Gemara.

And one immerses

on Yom Tov

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

And the entire matter will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And the Gemara infers:

At any rate, everyone agrees,

at least—

a vessel on Shabbat, not

does one immerse.

What is the reason?