Beitzah 22a — the Talmud in English

And they may cook one pot for him ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

and light the lamp for him

in honor of Shabbat.

In the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak they said: They may even roast a small fish for him

for Shabbat.

It was taught likewise

in accordance with Rav Huna:

One who did not prepare an eruv tavshilin—

they may bake one loaf of bread for him, insulate one pot for him, light the lamp for him, and heat one jug of water for him. And some say: They may even

roast a small fish for him.

Rava said: Actually

our Mishna is speaking of a case

where he did prepare

an eruv tavshilin.

But insulating is different,

as it was not permitted since

it is evident that he is acting with Shabbat in mind,

as his actions make clear that he insulated the food in honor of Shabbat, since people do not insulate food on Yom Tov. And on the basis of the eruv they permitted only labors whose performance does not reveal that they are being done in honor of Shabbat, in particular.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava

from that which was taught in a beraita:

Ḥananya says: Beit Shammai say:

a.

They may not bake

from Yom Tov for Shabbat

unless he prepared an eruv

of

bread

that has already been baked. For an eruv consisting of a cooked dish is not sufficient to permit baking.

b.

And they may not cook unless he prepared an eruv with a cooked dish,

but not if he prepared an eruv with bread.

c.

And they may not insulate

from Yom Tov for Shabbat,

unless he already had hot water insulated from the eve of Yom Tov.

And Abaye infers:

If he had hot water insulated

from the eve of Yom Tov—

at least,

then

he may

insulate,

even though it is evident that he is acting with Shabbat in mind

when insulating, which demonstrates that this is not in accordance with Rava!

Rather, Abaye said,

there is another way to explain it: Our Mishna is speaking of a case

where he prepared an eruv for this,

for baking he prepared an eruv with bread and for cooking he prepared an eruv with a cooked dish,

but did not prepare an eruv for this,

as he did not have water insulated from the eve of Yom Tov,

and

our Mishna is in accordance with the view of

Ḥananya, and according to Beit Shammai.

We learned in the Mishna, in the statement of Beit Shammai:

And they may not stand the candelabrum upright.

And we raised the question:

What

prohibition

is he committing

by standing the candelabrum upright?

And we answered:

Rav Ḥinnana bar Bisna said: Here we are dealing with a candelabrum made of detachable segments,

which can be taken apart,

as it appears

that by standing the segments upright he is—

building.

For Beit Shammai hold: There is

the category of the labor of

building

also

with regard to vessels,

and therefore it is prohibited to stand the segments of the candelabrum upright.

And Beit Hillel hold: There is no

category of the labor of

building with regard to vessels,

but only with regard to the ground,

and there is no

category of the labor of

demolishing with regard to vessels,

but only with regard to the ground. Therefore, there is no prohibition in standing the candelabrum upright, as it is a vessel.

Ulla happened to come

to

Rav Yehuda’s house. His attendant

got up

and

stood the lamp upright,

the “lamp” containing the oil and wick, with the flame burning above, at the side of the mouth of the lamp, where the wick reaches.

By standing the lamp upright, the oil collected at the bottom, and the oil did not reach the wick, so the flame went out.

Rav Yehuda raised an objection to Ulla

concerning the act performed by his attendant, from that which was taught in a beraita:

One who puts oil into a lamp

that is burning—

is liable for kindling,

since all the oil present in the lamp is considered to be burning, and when additional oil is put into a burning lamp, the additional oil is also considered as though it is all burning!

And one who removes some of it,

from the oil in the lamp while it is still burning—

is liable for extinguishing!

For, as stated, he removes oil that is considered as though it is all burning, and by removing it from the lamp he is considered to have extinguished it.

He said to him,

Ulla said to Rav Yehuda:

It was not done with my knowledge,

the attendant did this without my consent.

Rav said: Removing the charred tip of the wick is permitted.

It is permitted to remove the charred head of the wick on Yom Tov, since kindling has been permitted on Yom Tov, and this is a need of the day, so that the flame will burn better.

Abba bar Marta asked Abaye: What is the ruling with regard to extinguishing the lamp

on Yom Tov

because of something else [

for marital relations]?

He said to him,

Abaye said to him: This extinguishing is not a need of the day, since

it is possible

to have relations

in another house

that is not illuminated.

And Abba bar Marta asked Abaye again: And if

he has no other house—

what

is the ruling; is it then permitted to extinguish it? Abaye said to him:

It is possible to make a partition for it.

He said to him: And if

he has no

possibility

of making a partition—

what is the ruling?

He said to him:

It is possible to place a vessel over it.

He said to him: And if

he has no vessel—

what is the ruling?

Abaye said to him:

Abaye said to him: It is

prohibited

to extinguish it, as extinguishing was not permitted for a need of Yom Tov!

He raised an objection

Abba bar Marta raised to Abaye from that which was taught in a beraita:

They may not extinguish a burning log

of wood

in order to spare it,

so that it will not continue burning and be consumed entirely.

But

if

he wishes to extinguish it

so that the house or the pot will not become smoky—

it is permitted

to extinguish it.

This demonstrates that it is permitted to extinguish for a need of the day on Yom Tov, and the same should apply to a need for marital relations!

He said

in explanation

to him,

Abaye said to him:

That

beraita is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who permits labors for a need of the day on Yom Tov, and therefore he also permitted extinguishing.

For when I said

that it is prohibited to extinguish, it was

in accordance with the view of the

мнению

Rabbis,

whose view is the halakha, who permitted only labors required for food preparation, but not extinguishing, which is not required for food preparation.

These words of Abaye were stated after he had already learned from Rabba that one must rule that labors not required for food preparation are prohibited.

The question before us was posed before Abaye learned this from Rabba:

Abaye asked Rabba: What is the ruling with regard to extinguishing a fire on Yom Tov?

And Abaye clarified his question:

Where there is danger to life—

this is not a question for me, as

then

it is permitted even on Shabbat

to extinguish it.

When it is a question for me

is in a case where one comes to extinguish on Yom Tov

because of loss of property,

as his house and possessions will be lost in the fire—

what

is the ruling; is it permitted to extinguish for a need of the day, since if his house burns down he will not be able to stay there?

He said to him: It is prohibited

to extinguish it!

He raised an objection

Abaye raised to Rabba from that which was taught in a beraita:

They may not extinguish a log in order to spare it, but if

he extinguishes it

so that the house or the pot will not become smoky—

it is permitted.

For this is a need of the day.

And is there any need greater than being able to remain in his house!?

Rabba said to him:

That

beraita is in accordance with the view of

Rabbi Yehuda.

For when I said—

in accordance with the view of

the

Rabbis,

whose view is the halakha, and they permit only labors required for food preparation, not labors performed for a general need of the day!

Rav Ashi asked Ameimar: What is the ruling with regard to applying blue eye salve to the eye on Yom Tov,

as a diseased eye is treated by applying “blue” around it?

And Rav Ashi explains his question:

Where there is danger, such as

when the eye discharges

secretion,

or it is

painful,

with stabbing sensations like a needle prick, or it

bleeds,

or has

tearing,

tears profusely,

and fever,

burns,

and

all these symptoms are at the stage of

“the beginning of the illness”,

the onset of the disease—

this is not a question for me, as it is permitted even on Shabbat,

since such eye ailments constitute danger to life.

When it is a question for me

is when these eye ailments are at the stage of

“the end of the illness”,

when they are close to recovery and there is no longer a danger to life requiring the application of the salve.

And

he does this only for the sake of

opening the eye,

so that he will be able to open his eyes and see—

what

is the ruling; is it permitted to do this on Yom Tov?

He said to him,

Ameimar said to him:

It is prohibited.

He raised an objection

Rav Ashi raised from the beraita of

“They may not extinguish a log”.

It is explained there that it is permitted to extinguish for a need of Yom Tov, even when this does not involve food preparation.

And he answered

and

to him

Ameimar answered Rav Ashi

as we answered,

as we explained above: This beraita is not the halakha, as it is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yehuda.

Ameimar permitted applying blue eye salve

when there is no dangerous illness

by a non-Jew,

through a non-Jew, even

on Shabbat.

Some say: Ameimar himself

himself

applied blue eye salve

to his own eye

through a non-Jew on Shabbat.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is your reasoning

for permitting the application of the salve through a non-Jew? Apparently, it is because you rely on that

which Ulla son of Rav Ilai said: All the needs of a sick person

who is not in danger

may be performed through a non-Jew on Shabbat.

And it is not prohibited as they prohibited anything that a non-Jew does for a Jew [even without being instructed].

And

likewise you rely on that

which Rav Hamnuna said: In every matter

of illness

that does not involve danger—

one tells a non-Jew, and he performs it.

They did not issue a decree there prohibiting instructing a non-Jew to perform labor on Shabbat, which is prohibited for a healthy person as a rabbinic restriction.

But

these matters

that they permitted are only

where the Jew does not assist

the non-Jew

with him.

But the Master,

Ameimar, here you

do assist him,

as you assist him in applying the salve, since

you close

your eyes

and open them,

so that the medicinal salve will enter them, and this was not permitted!

He said to him,

Ameimar said to him:

There is Rav Zevid, who agrees with you,

as he holds as you do and raised your objection to me.

And I answered

and answered

him: “Assistance”—

has no substance.

If two people perform one labor together, and one of them is capable of performing it alone while the other is incapable of performing it alone and can only assist, there is no prohibition in such assistance.

Ameimar permitted

applying blue eye salve

on the second day of Rosh HaShana,

even through a Jew, because the labor prohibition on the second day of Yom Tov is only rabbinic.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But didn’t Rava say: If one dies on the first day of Yom Tov—

non-Jews shall attend to him

for his burial

non-Jews. If he dies

on the second day of Yom Tov— \-

во второй день праздника — \-

Jews shall attend to him, even on the two days of Yom Tov of Rosh HaShana,

as their sanctity is one; on the second day it was permitted, since its prohibition is only rabbinic, and they permitted it in honor of the deceased, so that he would be buried by Jews rather than by non-Jews.