Shabbat 120b (קכ:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

It—

Rav,

who said—

follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas,

who permits delaying the fire even with the moist hide of a kid.

And we reject this:

You may say that Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas said

that it is permitted to delay the fire with a moist kid’s hide

because it

merely

becomes singed,

as the hide becomes singed and thereby merely prevents the fire from spreading.

But to perform

causing extinguishing

in such a manner that the fire reaches the water absorbed in the garment, and the water actually extinguishes the fire—

who said so?

And we answer:

No.

He permitted even causing extinguishing.

And the proof is

from what it teaches in the latter clause:

Rabbi Yosei prohibits [placing] new earthenware vessels filled with water,

because

the

new vessels

cannot withstand the fire, and they burst and extinguish the fire;

and we may infer:

by implication, the first tanna permits

even with new vessels that burst, and the water that emerges from them extinguishes the fire.

The Sages taught: A lamp

that is burning

which

is found

on a board—

one shakes the board, and it falls. And if

it was extinguished—

it was extinguished.

Since he does not intend to extinguish it, and an unintended act is permitted on Shabbat.

The scholars of the house of Rabbi Yannai said: They taught

that it is permitted to shake the board

only when one forgot

the lamp on it before Shabbat.

But when one intentionally placed

the lamp upon it before Shabbat, intending to leave it there on Shabbat—

the board becomes

the

base for

the lamp, which is

a prohibited object.

A base for a prohibited object is itself muktze, and it cannot be moved in order to shake off the lamp resting upon it.

The tanna taught: A lamp that is behind a door—

one opens and closes

the door

in the usual manner, and if it was extinguished

the flame—

it was extinguished.

Rav condemned the practice.

Rav cursed those who instructed people to act in accordance with this leniency.

Ravina said to Rav Aha, son of Rava—and some say that Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is the reason that Rav condemned the practice?

If you say it is because Rav follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,

and

if

the tanna

who prohibits an unintended act of labor

and

if

the tanna

of the beraita

taught it in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that if one does not intend to perform the labor, it is permitted,

but

because Rav follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda—

does Rav curse everyone who teaches in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

In this case,

the law of a lamp behind a door—

even Rabbi Shimon agrees

that it is prohibited.

For Abaye and Rava both said: Rabbi Shimon agrees in a case of pesik reishei—“and shall he not die?”

When a prohibited labor will certainly result from one’s action, he is liable; and opening the door will certainly cause the lamp to be extinguished, so it is prohibited.

Rav Yehuda said: A person may open a door opposite

the

bonfire on Shabbat,

even though the wind blowing through the door strengthens the fire in the bonfire.

He condemned the practice,

cursing

Abaye

those who instructed people to act so.

And we explain:

What are we dealing with?

If you say

that he opens the door

in an ordinary wind—

what is the reason of the one who prohibits?

Opening the door is not the usual way to intensify a bonfire with an ordinary wind, and it is not a pesik reishei that the fire will burn more strongly as a result of opening the door.

And

if

the case is that he opens the door

in an unusual wind—

what is the reason of the one who permits it?

It is a pesik reishei that the fire will be kindled, and this is the normal way of kindling a fire.

And we answer:

Actually,

the case is

an ordinary wind.

One master,

Abaye,

holds: We issue a decree

due to an unusual wind.

And one master,

Rav Yehuda,

holds: We do not issue such a decree.

We learned in the Mishna:

One may make a partition

of jugs filled with water in order to prevent the fire from passing.

And Rabbi Yosei prohibits it.

And we raise the question:

Is this to say that the Rabbis,

who permit making the partition,

hold

that

causing extinguishing is permitted, whereas Rabbi Yosei holds

that

causing extinguishing is prohibited?

And we are perplexed:

But we heard the opposite from them!

As it was taught in a beraita: One may make a partition

before the fire, both

with empty vessels, and

both

with

vessels

filled

with water, in vessels

that are not likely to break.

And these

are vessels

filled

with water

that are not likely to break—

metal vessels.

Rabbi Yosei says: Even vessels

of earthenware made from the soil of

Kefar Shihin, and

likewise

vessels

of earthenware made from the soil of

Kefar Hananya—

they are strong, and

are not likely to break.

It is evident from this beraita that Rabbi Yosei is more lenient than the Rabbis with regard to causing extinguishing, since he permits filling with water even certain earthenware vessels, something the Rabbis did not permit.

And if you would say, reverse the Mishna,

and write in it that Rabbi Yosei is the one who permits making the partition with vessels filled with water, while the Sages prohibit it.

And Rabbi

Yosei of the beraita—

was speaking according to their

position,

he said

to them as follows: According to my own position, it is permitted to make a partition with all vessels. But even according to your position, strong earthenware vessels should be permitted, since they do not burst.

This cannot be said. For—

can you really reverse it?

The Mishna, so that Rabbi Yosei is more lenient.

But Rabba bar Taḥalifa said in the name of Rav: Who is the tanna who holds that causing extinguishing is prohibited?—

Rabbi Yosei

is he!

Rather, actually, do not reverse it.

And the entire beraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

And the beraita is abbreviated

in its wording,

and this is what it teaches:

One may make a partition with

all the

vessels

when they are

empty.

And

likewise

with

vessels

filled

with water,

when they are not likely to break.

And these are vessels that are not likely to break—

metal vessels.

And the vessels of Kefar Shihin and the vessels of Kefar Hananya are also not likely to break.

For Rabbi Yosei says: Even the vessels of Kefar Shihin and the vessels of Kefar Hananya are not likely to break.

And we raise a difficulty:

And one can juxtapose the opinion of the Rabbis against the opinion of the Rabbis, and the opinion of Rabbi Yosei against the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

As it was taught in a beraita: If there was

the letter heh, which is prohibited to erase,

written for him on his flesh—

he may neither bathe nor anoint himself,

lest he erase it.

And he may not stand in a filthy place

because of its sanctity.

If it happened to him,

that he became obligated to immerse,

in an immersion for a mitzva—

he wraps a reed around it and goes down and immerses.

Rabbi Yosei says: He always goes down and immerses in the usual manner, provided that he does not rub

the Divine Name with his hands.

It is evident that Rabbi Yosei permits causing the erasure of the Divine Name, since he does not erase it directly; rather, he goes down and immerses, and the Name is erased only as a result of his action.

And the Gemara assumed that causing a prohibition on Shabbat and causing the erasure of the Divine Name are equivalent.

If so, this is difficult, since with regard to erasing the Divine Name we find the opposite dispute from that concerning extinguishing: Rabbi Yosei is the lenient one with regard to causing erasure, while the Rabbis are stringent and prohibit it.

And we answer:

That case is different,

the case of erasing the Divine Name,

as the verse says [Deuteronomy 12]:

Deuteronomy 12]:

“And you shall destroy their names from that place; you shall not do so to the Lord your God.”

Rabbi Yosei understands the wording of the verse, “you shall not do,” to teach that only

performing

the destruction directly

is prohibited,

but

causing

the destruction—

is permitted.

Therefore, Rabbi Yosei, who is stringent with regard to Shabbat, is lenient with regard to erasure.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

since Rabbi Yosei derives from the wording “performing” that causing is permitted,

here too,

with regard to the labor of Shabbat,

it is written

in the language of performing [Exodus 20]:

“You shall not perform any labor”—

and let us derive:

Performing is prohibited, but causing is permitted!

And we answer: With regard to the labor of extinguishing, Rabbi Yosei held that causing extinguishing should be prohibited for another reason. Since

a person is anxious about his property,

if you permit him

to perform causing extinguishing,

he will come

also

to extinguish

directly.

And we challenged this:

If so,

in the case of extinguishing, one should be concerned lest he come to extinguish it with his hands, because a person is frantic about his property—

this is a difficulty from one statement of the Rabbis to another statement of the Rabbis.

For

if there,

in the case of causing extinguishing indirectly,

where a person is frantic about his property,

the Rabbis permit

causing extinguishing indirectly,

here,

in the case of causing erasure indirectly, where a person is not frantic about his property,

all the more so

it should be necessary to permit causing erasure indirectly!?

The Gemara retracts its assumption that the reason the Rabbis required one to place a reed over the Divine Name at the time of immersion was because of causing erasure indirectly, and demonstrates this:

And can you understand it this way? This reed

that the Sages required him to place over the flesh on which the Divine Name was written when he came to immerse—

what are the circumstances?

The matter is difficult whichever way one looks at it:

If it is tightly fastened

to his body,

it constitutes a barrier,

and his immersion is invalid.

If it is not tightly fastened,

water enters it

and erases the Divine Name. What purpose does the reed serve, and how may he be permitted to cause the erasure of the Divine Name!?

As an aside, the Gemara asks: according to the possibility that the reed is

a barrier,

let it follow

that in any event there is a barrier here even without the reed,

because of the ink

with which the Divine Name was written.

The Gemara answers that there is no barrier here on account of the ink itself, for it can be said that the case concerns

a

ink that is

wet,

which does not constitute a barrier.

As it was taught in a baraita: Blood, ink, honey, and milk,

when they are

dry,

constitute barriers.

When they are

wet,

they do not constitute barriers.

In any event, this is difficult:

why does the reed help according to the Rabbis, whichever way one looks at it!?

Rather, Rava bar Rav Sheila said: This is

the reason for the Rabbis’ view:

one must place a reed over the Divine Name without fastening it tightly, because

they hold: It is forbidden to stand before the Divine Name

when it is

uncovered.

We raise an objection:

By inference, Rabbi Yosei,

who permitted immersing without placing a reed,

holds that it is permitted to stand before the Divine Name uncovered;

but this cannot be so.

And we answer: According to Rabbi Yosei, the case is one

where he places his hand over it.

We analyze this: If so,

according to the Rabbis as well,

immersion should be effective

when he places his hand over it;

why, then, is it necessary to place a reed? And we answer:

At times he may forget,

and forget

and remove

and lift

it

his hand from over the Divine Name while he is unclothed.

We challenge this:

According to Rabbi Yosei as well,

let us be concerned lest

at times he may forget and remove it!

And we answer:

Rather, if there is a reed,

this is indeed so:

it must also be placed there according to Rabbi Yosei.

What are we dealing with here?

The dispute concerns whether it is necessary

to search

and seek out the reed and wait before immersing,

for a reed,

until they find the reed.