Shabbat 18a — the Talmud in English

And in all of these cases

with regard to hides and utensils],

Beit Hillel permit

giving them to a gentile on the eve of Shabbat

with

tochnoe polozhenie stranitsy")

the sun

while the sun is still shining, until nightfall. There is no prohibition here of instructing a gentile to perform work. The gentile is not acting at the Jew’s direction; rather, he performs the work for his own purposes .

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: It was the practice of the members of my father’s household to give white garments to a gentile launderer three days before Shabbat.

Since white garments are difficult to launder and require three days for their laundering to be completed, they gave them to the gentile this amount of time in advance, which is the time needed for the work to be performed before Shabbat. They were stringent with themselves in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai.

And these two authorities agree

[Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel],

that they load

on the eve of Shabbat

the beam of the olive press

with olives,

and

they likewise load

the press weights

with grapes, even though the grapes continue to be squeezed throughout Shabbat.

Although squeezing is also a prohibited labor from the Torah, as a derivative of threshing, and Beit Shammai maintain that it is prohibited on the eve of Shabbat to cause the labor to be performed on Shabbat, loading the beam of the olive press is different: even on Shabbat itself, one would not be liable to bring a sin-offering for it, and it is not a prohibited labor from the Torah. This is because, before the olives are placed beneath the beam, they are first ground in a mill. Similarly, grapes are first trodden underfoot before they are loaded into the press weights . Even without the loading, liquid would emerge from them, although it would not emerge properly. Therefore, this is not comparable to the labor of threshing. Beit Shammai prohibited on the eve of Shabbat only a labor for which one would be liable to bring a sin-offering if it were performed on Shabbat itself.

Gemara: The talmudic discussion of the Mishna.

We learned in the Mishna: One may not soak ink.

Infer from this that when ink is permitted to be soaked in water, this is a labor prohibited by the Torah, and it is a derivative of kneading . For, as stated in the conclusion of the Mishna, Beit Shammai prohibited only a labor prohibited by the Torah.

The Gemara asks:

Who

is this

tannaitic sage

who holds

“Adding water to ink

is its soaking,”

and one is liable for it on account of kneading even without mixing it?

Rav Yosef said:

The Mishna is

the opinion of Rabbi.

As it was taught in a beraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna: One person adds the water, and another adds

after him

into it

the flour

the water,

or one person adds the flour and the other adds the water—the one who adds

the latter ingredient is liable

for kneading. Adding water to flour, or flour to water, is considered kneading, and actual mixing is not required .

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says:

One is not liable on account of kneading

until he mixes

the flour with water.

The same applies to adding ink to water: according to Rabbi, it is kneading. The Mishna follows his opinion .

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But perhaps

the Mishna follows the opinion of everyone?

Because

Rabbi Yosei

did not say that mixing is required

except with regard to flour, which can be mixed.

Since mixing is the normal way to process it, as long as one has not mixed it, he has not performed the labor in the normal manner .

But ink, which cannot be mixed, perhaps one is liable

merely for adding it to water, even without mixing, because this is the normal manner of performing its labor . Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

That distinction cannot be accepted

as a valid distinction.

For

the

beraita teaches: One person adds the ashes, and another adds the water—

the latter is liable; this is the statement of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says:

One is not liable

until he mixes.

But ashes cannot be mixed. Nevertheless, Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says with regard to them that one is not liable without mixing. Evidently, they disagree even with regard to something that cannot be mixed!

Abaye said to him: There is no proof from there, because

perhaps what is meant by “ashes

is earth, which can be mixed.”

Therefore, Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda exempts one who has not mixed it. But with regard to something that can be mixed, one may say that he is not liable until he mixes it.

Rav Yosef rejected this: You cannot explain that the beraita’s reference to “ashes” is actually to earth, because we learned two separate beraitot concerning this matter.

a.

And it was taught

in one of them:

».

b.

And it was taught

in the other:

“earth.”

».

The Gemara responds:

Is it so?

Were these two beraitot

taught together

by the same person? Each beraita was taught separately. One was taught by Rabbi Chiyya, and the other was taught by Rabbi Oshaya.

If so, it is entirely possible to say that both beraitot refer to earth, except that one of them called earth “ashes.”

But with regard to actual ashes, which cannot be mixed, Rabbi Yosei agrees that mixing is not required. The same applies to ink.

And the Mishna can likewise be explained well even according to his opinion.

The Sages taught: One may open the water

[open the mouth of the spring]

to a garden

on

the eve of Shabbat with

[until]

nightfall, and

even if

it continues filling

the garden with this water

throughout the entire day.

Irrigation is a derivative of sowing and is a labor prohibited by the Torah. Nevertheless, it is permitted to cause this labor to be performed on Shabbat by setting it in motion on the eve of Shabbat.

And

likewise

one may place incense

[types of spices] on the fire

beneath utensils

on the eve of Shabbat, so that its smoke will rise into the utensils and cause them to become fragrant.

And the utensils continue to become perfumed

throughout

the entire day.

And one may place sulfur

on the fire

beneath utensils

of silver on the eve of Shabbat, so that they will become blackened and the forms of the engravings on them will become visible,

and they continue to become sulfur-blackened throughout the entire Shabbat.

We are not concerned that the burning continues on its own during Shabbat.

And one may place an eye dressing

[a bandage]

on the eye

for medical treatment on the eve of Shabbat, so that it will remain there throughout Shabbat. But on Shabbat itself it is prohibited to place it, because medical treatment is prohibited on Shabbat, as a decree due to the concern that one might grind medicinal substances .

And

likewise one may place

a plaster

[a dressing]

on a wound

on the eve of Shabbat,

and it continues healing it throughout the entire day.

But one may not place wheat into a water-powered mill

on the eve of Shabbat so that it will be ground on Shabbat .

Rather,

one places it only

so that it will be ground before Shabbat

before Shabbat [and certainly one may not place it in a mill operated by a donkey, since a person is warned to ensure that his animal rests].

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

that it is prohibited to place wheat in a water-powered mill, and how does this differ from all those cases at the beginning, where we permit the labor to be performed on its own during Shabbat?

Rabba said: Because

the grinding of the mill

makes noise.

Since it publicizes that work is being performed on Shabbat, this involves dishonor to Shabbat.

Rav Yosef said

to Rabba:

Should the Master not say

that it is prohibited by Torah law

because of the requirement that one’s utensils rest?

A person is warned not to allow his utensils to perform work on Shabbat.

And

as it was taught:

It is written: “For six days you shall perform your tasks, but on the seventh day you shall rest, so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your maidservant and the stranger may be refreshed.” And it is written afterward:

“And in all that I have said to you, you shall observe.”

This verse comes

to include “the requirement that one’s utensils rest.”

Rather, Rabbi Yosef said:

The prohibition against placing wheat in the mill so that it will be ground on Shabbat

is because of the requirement that one’s utensils rest

.

The Gemara asks: But this beraita follows the opinion of Beit Hillel, since according to Beit Shammai one should also prohibit incense and sulfur, just as they prohibited soaking ink and similar acts on the eve of Shabbat.

And now that you say

that the reason for the beraita is the requirement that one’s utensils rest, then

Beit Hillel

also

maintain that

the requirement that one’s utensils rest

— eto

is required by Torah law.

For the beraita follows their opinion. If so,

what is the reason that sulfur and incense are permitted?

The labor of kindling is being performed through his utensils.

The Gemara answers: There is no requirement that one’s utensils rest in this case,

because it does not perform

the utensil containing the coals does not perform

the act

of kindling; rather, the coals burn on their own. This differs from a mill, which performs the act of grinding with its own mechanism.

And regarding placing

bundles of flax

in an oven so that they will be whitened on Shabbat, why did Beit Hillel permit it? There too, it is

because the oven does not perform

the

act.

Rather, it

simply remains stationary,

and the cooking occurs by itself.

The Gemara asks again: But

a trap for animals, birds, or fish performs

the

act

of trapping, since when the animals touch it with their feet, it springs shut and traps them. Since this violates the requirement that one’s utensils rest,

why did

Beit Hillel permit spreading such traps on the eve of Shabbat?

The Gemara answers:

There too,

we are not dealing with traps that catch by means of a mechanism that performs an act. Rather, we are dealing with

a fishhook

[a type of fishing hook], which the fish tightens in its mouth, and it is thereby caught. But the hook itself does not move from its place and performs no act.

And

likewise

with a fish basket

[a basket whose one opening is wide and whose other opening is very narrow]. The fish enters through the wide opening and protrudes its head through the narrow opening, but it cannot withdraw its body through it. Nor can it pull its head back because of the gills on its cheeks. Thus, the fish is trapped on its own, and

the utensil does not perform

any

act.

This is also the position of Beit Hillel. But according to Beit Shammai, all these cases involve the requirement that one’s utensils rest. Since the incense, the flax, and the fish are inside the utensil when the labor is performed, this too is considered an act performed by the utensil.

The Gemara concludes: That is not so.

For

now that Rav Oshaya said in the name of Rav Asi: Who is the tannaitic sage

who derives from a verse

that the requirement that one’s utensils rest is a Torah law—

it is Beit Shammai, not Beit Hillel.

There is therefore no basis for distinguishing between a utensil that performs the act and one that does not perform an act.

Rather,

according to Beit Shammai—

whether it performs an action or whether it does not perform an action, it is forbidden

because of the resting of utensils.

And according to Beit Hillel—

even though it performs

the utensil an act,

it is permitted,

for they do not hold at all of the principle of the resting of utensils.

And the beraita that prohibited placing wheat in a mill on the eve of Shabbat is because of the resting of utensils, and in accordance with Beit Shammai. But Beit Hillel permit doing so. And we do not prohibit it because of the making of noise.

And again we raise an objection:

And now that you have said that according to Beit Shammai, even though it performs

the utensil

an act,