Shabbat 120b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

it is—

Rav,

who says—

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas,

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

And we refute:

I can say that Rabbi Shimon ben Nanas said

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

because it is

only

scorched,

for the hide is scorched, and thereby it only prevents the fire from spreading.

But to perform

causing extinguishing

in a manner in which 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 at the end:

“Rabbi Yose prohibits [using] new earthenware vessels filled with water,”

because

the

new vessels

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

and we should infer:

by implication, the first tanna permits

even [using] new vessels that burst, and the water issuing from them extinguishes the fire.

The Sages taught: A lamp

that is burning

which

is found

upon 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.

They said in the house of Rabbi Yannai: We taught

that it is permitted to shake the board

only when he forgot

the lamp upon it from before Shabbat.

But when he intentionally placed

the lamp upon it before Shabbat with the intention of leaving it there on Shabbat —

the board becomes

the

base for

the lamp, which is

a prohibited object.

And a base for a prohibited object is muktzeh, and it is impossible to move it in order to shake off the lamp that is upon it.

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

he opens and closes

the door

in his usual manner, and if it was extinguished

the fire—

it was extinguished.

Rav cursed him.

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

Ravina said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava—and some say, Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is the reason Rav cursed him?

If you say it is because Rav holds like Rabbi Yehuda,

and

if

the tanna

who prohibits an unintended act of labor

and

if

the tanna

of the beraita

teaches it in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

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

and is it the case that

because Rav holds like Rabbi Yehuda,

he curses everyone who teaches in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

Rav?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

In this case,

in 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 pesik reishei—“and shall he not die.”

For if a prohibited labor will certainly result from his actions, he is liable, and opening the door will certainly lead to the extinguishing of the lamp, and 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 intensifies the fire in the bonfire.

He cursed him,

he cursed

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?

For it is not the ordinary way to kindle a bonfire with an ordinary wind, and this is not a pesik reishei that the fire will blaze more 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? For this is a pesik reishei that the fire will be kindled, and this is the manner of kindling a fire.

It is an inevitable consequence 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 decree

on account of an unusual wind.

And one master,

Rav Yehuda,

holds: We do not decree.

We learned in the Mishna:

One makes a partition

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

And Rabbi Yose prohibits.

And we raised the question:

Is that to say that the Rabbis,

who permit making the partition,

hold

that

causing extinguishing is permitted, while Rabbi Yose holds

that

causing extinguishing is prohibited?

And we were astonished:

But we heard the opposite from them!

For it was taught: One makes 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 Yose says: Even vessels

of earthenware made from the earth of

Kafr Shihin, and

likewise

vessels

of earthenware made from the earth of

Kafr Hanania—

they are strong, and

are not likely to break.

And it is proven from this beraita that Rabbi Yose is more lenient concerning causing extinguishing than the Rabbis, for he permits filling even certain earthenware vessels with water, something the Rabbis did not permit.

And if you would say: Reverse the Mishna,

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

And Rabbi

Yose of the beraita

was speaking according to their words,

of the Sages,

he said. And this is what he said to them: According to me, it is permitted to make a partition with all the vessels. But even according to your view, strong earthenware vessels should be permitted, since they do not burst.

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

It is impossible to say this, because—

can you reverse it?

The Mishna, so that Rabbi Yose is more lenient.

But Rabba bar Taḥlifa said in the name of Rav: Which tanna taught that causing extinguishing is prohibited?—

Rabbi Yose

is he!

Rather, actually, do not reverse it.

And the entire beraita is Rabbi Yose.

And it is deficient

in the wording of the beraita,

and this is what it teaches:

One makes 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 Kafr Shihin and the vessels of Kafr Hanania are also not likely to break.

For Rabbi Yose says: Even the vessels of Kafr Shihin and the vessels of Kafr Hanania are not likely to break.

And we raise an objection:

And raise the contradiction between the Rabbis and the Rabbis, and between Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Yose.

For it was taught: If there was

the letter he, which is forbidden to erase,

written for him upon his flesh—

he may not wash, nor anoint himself,

lest he erase it.

And he may not stand in a place of filth

because of its sanctity.

If it happened to him,

that he was required to immerse,

an immersion of a mitzva—

he wraps a reed around it, and descends and immerses.

Rabbi Yose says: He always descends and immerses in his usual manner, provided that he does not rub

the Name with his hands.

And it is proven that Rabbi Yose is the one who permits causing the erasure of the Name, since he does not erase it with his hands; rather, he descends and immerses, and the Name is erased only through his causing it .

And the Gemara thought that causing a prohibition on Shabbat and [causing] the erasure of the Name are equivalent.

If so, this is difficult, for concerning erasure of the Name we find an opposite dispute from extinguishing: Rabbi Yose is the one who is lenient concerning causing erasure, while the Rabbis are stringent and prohibit it.

And we answer:

It is different there,

concerning erasure of the Name,

for the verse says [

Deuteronomy 12]:

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

And Rabbi Yose understands from the wording of the verse, “you shall not do,” that only

doing

with one’s hands of the destruction

is prohibited,

but

causing

the destruction—

is permitted .

And therefore Rabbi Yose, who is stringent concerning Shabbat, is lenient concerning erasure.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

that Rabbi Yose derives from the wording “doing” that causing it is permitted,

here too,

concerning the labor of Shabbat,

it is written

the wording of doing: [

Exodus 20]

“You shall not do any labor”—

and let us derive: Doing is prohibited, causing is permitted!

And we answer: In the labor of extinguishing, Rabbi Yose held that causing extinguishing must be prohibited for another reason. For

since a person is distraught over his money—

if you permit him

to perform causing extinguishing,

he will come

also

to extinguish

with his hands.

And we challenged:

If so

in extinguishing there should be concern lest he come to extinguish with his hands, because a person is frantic over his property

— this is a difficulty from the Rabbis against the Rabbis:

For

what is it there,

in indirect extinguishing,

that a person is frantic over his property —

it is permitted

according to the Rabbis to perform indirect extinguishing,

here,

in indirect erasure, where a person is not frantic over his property,

all the more so

it should be necessary to permit indirect erasure!?

And the Gemara retracts the assumption that the reason of the Rabbis, who required placing a reed over the Name of God at the time of immersion, is on account of indirect erasure, and proves:

And can you understand it so? This reed

that the Sages required him to place over his flesh on which the Name of God is written when he comes to immerse —

what are the circumstances?

And in either case there is a difficulty:

If it is tightly fastened

the reed to his body —

it is an interposition,

and his immersion is ineffective.

If it is not tightly fastened —

water enters it

and erases the Name of God, and what benefit is there in the reed, and how is he permitted to cause the erasure of the Name of God!?

And in a parenthetical remark the Gemara asks: according to the possibility that the reed is

an interposition —

let it emerge for him

that in any event there is an interposition here even without the reed,

because of the ink

in which the Name of God is written .

And the Gemara answers that with regard to the ink itself there is no interposition here, for it is possible to say that the matter concerns

in

ink

that is wet,

which does not create an interposition .

For it was taught in a beraita: The blood, the ink, the honey, and the milk,

when they are

dry —

they create an interposition.

When they are

wet —

they do not create an interposition.

In any event, there is a difficulty

from either side: why is the reed beneficial according to the Rabbis!?

Rather, Rava bar Rav Shila said: This is

the reason of the Rabbis,

that one must place a reed over the Name of God in a non-tight manner, because

they hold: it is forbidden to stand before the Name

when it is

uncovered.

And we are astonished:

Does it follow that Rabbi Yosei,

who permitted immersing without placing a reed,

holds that it is permitted to stand before the Name uncovered?

But this cannot be so.

And we answer: according to Rabbi Yosei, the matter concerns one

who places his hand over it .

And we examine this: if so,

according to the Rabbis as well,

so that immersion should be effective

when he places his hand over it,

why is it necessary to give him a reed? And we answer:

Sometimes he forgets,

he will forget

and remove

and raise

it

from his hand above the Name of God while he is uncovered.

And we challenge:

according to Rabbi Yosei as well,

let us be concerned lest

sometimes he forgets and removes it!

And we answer:

Rather, if there is a reed —

so indeed

it is also necessary to give it to Rabbi Yosei.

Here, with what are we dealing —

the dispute is whether it is necessary

to go back

to go back, search, and wait rather than immerse

for a reed,

until they find the reed.