Shabbat 117b (קיז:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, Rav Ashi said: Three partitions and one side-post —

this is a mavוי that is not open at both ends.

Three partitions without a side-post —

this is a mavוי open at both ends.

And even according to Rabbi Eliezer, who says that we require

two

side-posts, that statement applies —

to

saving

food and drink.

But to

saving

a Torah scroll —

one side-post is sufficient.

And therefore the Rabbis permit it with three partitions and one side-post , and ben Betira permits it without any side-post at all.

Mishna:

One may save food sufficient for three meals .

What is fit for a person —

for a person; what is fit for an animal —

for an animal .

How so?

If a fire broke out on Friday night —

one may save food sufficient for three meals.

In the morning —

one may save food sufficient for two meals.

In the afternoon —

food sufficient for one meal.

Rabbi Yosei says: One may always save food sufficient for three meals,

even if the fire broke out close to the end of Shabbat, because he is saving it in a permitted manner, and they prohibited him from taking out more only so that he would not come to extinguish the fire; this limitation is sufficient .

Gemara:

And we raise an objection:

After all,

when he saves food,

he is exerting himself for a permitted purpose,

so

let him save more!

Rava said: Since a person is agitated over his property, if

you permit him

to save as much as he wishes,

he will come to extinguish the fire.

Therefore, they decreed that the quantities he is permitted to save be limited .

Abaye said to him: But what about that which was taught in a beraita: If one’s barrel broke on his roof —

he may bring a vessel and place it beneath the barrel, provided that he does not bring another vessel and catch the liquid, or another vessel and combine it with the first.

There —

what decree is there?

What concern is there that he might perform a prohibited labor?

Rava said to him:

Here too,

they prohibited it because of a

decree —

lest he bring a vessel through the public domain.

Therefore, they permitted him to use only one vessel and not another vessel, because if he troubles himself to bring many vessels, he may forget and bring them through the public domain.

The main matter: If one’s barrel broke on his roof —

he may bring a vessel and place it beneath the barrel, provided that he does not bring another vessel

and catch the liquid, or another vessel and combine it with the first .

But if

guests happened to come to him —

he may bring another vessel and catch the liquid, and another vessel and combine it with the first.

And he may not catch the liquid and afterward invite

guests. Rather, he should invite them and afterward catch the liquid.

And one may not employ a ruse in this manner

by inviting guests who do not need to eat .

In the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda they said: One may employ a ruse.

And we raise an objection:

Shall we say that

the Rabbis and Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda

disagree in accordance with the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua?

As it was taught in a beraita: If an ox and its offspring fell into a pit

on Yom Tov, and it is possible to slaughter only one of them on Yom Tov, it follows that one may trouble himself to remove only one of them from the pit.

Rabbi Eliezer says: He raises the first one on

the condition that he slaughter it.

And the second one —

he provides sustenance for it,

some means of rescue,

in its place, so that it will not die.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He raises the first one on the condition that he slaughter it, but he does not slaughter it, and he employs a ruse,

finding a reason why the second is preferable for slaughter, because it is of better quality,

and he raises

also

the second one.

Once both are outside the pit:

if he wishes —

he slaughters this one; if he wishes —

he slaughters that one.

And we reject this inference:

From where

do we know that they disagree in accordance with that same dispute?

Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer said only there

that one may not employ a ruse, to be stringent, because

it is possible

to save the second animal

by providing it sustenance.

But here, where it is impossible

to save the food,

he does not

act stringently by prohibiting a ruse.

And Rabbi Yehoshua said only there

that one may employ a ruse,

because there is the suffering of living

creatures.

But here, where there is no suffering of living creatures —

he does not

permit employing a ruse.

The Sages taught:

If he already

saved fine bread, he may not

again

save

also

inferior bread, coarse bread .

But if he saved

inferior bread —

he may save

fine bread .

And one may save from Yom Kippur for Shabbat, but not from Shabbat for Yom Kippur .

And it is not necessary to say

that one may not save

from Shabbat for Yom Tov,

since he can prepare food on Yom Tov.

And not from Shabbat for the following Shabbat.

The Sages taught: If one forgot bread in the oven and the day became sanctified over it —

if he leaves the bread in the oven, it will burn, and this involves saving it from a fire —

he may save

and remove from the oven—which is only a rabbinic prohibition—

food sufficient for three meals.

And he may say

also

to others: Come and save food for yourselves .

And when he removes it from the oven —

he should not remove it with a baker’s peel,

which is the weekday manner,

but with a knife,

and since he is performing the action in an unusual manner, there is no prohibition involved.

And they challenge this requirement that he perform the action in an unusual manner:

Is that so? But the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

(Exodus 20)

“You shall not perform any labor” —

excluding

the

blowing of the shofar and the removal of bread from the oven, which are skillful acts but not labor!”

And we answer:

Whenever it is possible to perform the act in an unusual manner, we do so.

Rav Ḥisda said: A person should always rise early to

exert himself for

the preparation of Shabbat.

As it is stated:

(Exodus 16)

“And it shall be on the sixth day, and they shall prepare what they bring” —

immediately.

They should prepare it as soon as they gather it, and that is in the morning .

Rabbi Abba said: On Shabbat a person is obligated to break bread

to recite the blessing on Shabbat

over two loaves

of bread.

As it is written: “double bread” .

Rav Ashi said: I saw Rav Kahana take two loaves

that he held two loaves in his hands,

and break

and cut only

one.

He said: “Liktu” is written.

that he took a portion from the leḥem mishneh.

Rabbi Zeira would break bread for the entire meal,

cutting a large slice for the entire meal, thereby demonstrating his affection for the Shabbat meal, as he prepared himself to eat a large meal in honor of Shabbat .

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But it appears like gluttony!

He said to him: Since he does not do so every day,

he does not cut a large slice,

and it is only today that he does so—

it does not appear like gluttony.

When Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi happened upon a loaf

the loaf of bread

of the eruv,

of an eruv of courtyards—

they would

recite the blessing HaMotzi

over it.

They said: Since one mitzva has already been performed with it—

let another mitzva be performed with it .

We learned in the Mishna:

“What are the circumstances? If a fire broke out”—

one may rescue food sufficient for three meals.

The Sages taught: How many meals is a person obligated to eat on Shabbat—

three.

Rabbi Ḥidka says: Four.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And both of them—

derive their opinions from a single verse .

It is written [

Exodus 16]:

“And Moses said: ‘Eat it today, for today is Shabbat for the Lord. Today you will not find it

in the field.’”

Rabbi Ḥidka holds: These three instances of “today”—

which come to teach about three meals—

are in addition to the evening meal,

apart from the meal on Shabbat night.

And the Rabbis hold: Together with the evening meal.