Shabbat 18b (יח:) — the Talmud in English

It is prohibited

that work be performed inside it —

if so,

why did Beit Shammai permit perfume and sulfur

[for we established that beraita in accordance with their opinion]?

And we answer:

There

the sulfur and perfume are placed

on the ground,

and not inside a vessel.

And furthermore we ask:

A vat,

with beer inside it [for it is impossible to place the beer on the ground], and the barley remains in it for a period considerably longer than eight days, including Shabbat,

and

likewise

a lamp

that is burning on Shabbat,

and

likewise

a pot

that is upon the stove and is cooking on Shabbat,

and

likewise

a spit

upon which there is a roast placed in the oven on Shabbat — these too should be prohibited because of the requirement that one’s vessels rest on Shabbat.

And for what reason did

Beit Shammai

permit

them? And we answer: The ruling that these vessels are not subject to the requirement that one’s vessels rest on Shabbat applies where

the

owners

rendered them ownerless

—the vat, the lamp, the pot, and the spit. And since they do not belong to him, he is no longer admonished concerning them.

And furthermore we inquire:

Who is the tanna of that which the Sages taught:

a.

A woman may not fill a pot with cesses and lupins

[types of legumes],

and place it in the oven on Shabbat eve at twilight

so that they will cook over the course of Shabbat.

b.

Similarly, a baker may not fill a barrel with water and place it in the oven

on

Shabbat eve at twilight.

c.

And if

he transgressed and

did so,

even

at the conclusion of Shabbat

they are

prohibited

for consumption

until sufficient time has elapsed for them to be prepared.

That is, they become permitted for consumption only after the amount of time required for their cooking has elapsed following Shabbat. For after that time, he no longer benefits from the fact that they began cooking on Shabbat. Before then, however, they are prohibited, so that he will not benefit from work performed in violation of Shabbat

. And it occurred to us that the reason it is prohibited to do this is the requirement that one’s vessels rest on Shabbat

. And we inquire:

Shall we say that our Mishna is in accordance with Beit Shammai and not with Beit Hillel,

who do not accept the requirement that one’s vessels rest on Shabbat?

And we reject this:

You may even say that it is in accordance with Beit Hillel

as well, and it is properly understood. For the reason that it is prohibited to place cesses and water in the oven is not the requirement that one’s vessels rest on Shabbat, but rather

a decree lest he rake

the coals

on Shabbat

in order to hasten the cooking of the legumes, thereby kindling a fire on Shabbat.

And the case concerns cesses and lupins that are raw, whose cooking had not yet begun before Shabbat. They are prohibited specifically because they require extensive cooking, and the entire night and day are not sufficient for them. Therefore, we are concerned that he may come to rake the coals in order for their cooking to be completed by the conclusion of Shabbat. But other types of raw cooked foods whose cooking had not begun before Shabbat may be placed in the oven at twilight, as will be explained below

. With regard to water, the beraita teaches us that even though there is sufficient time for it to become hot without raking the coals, we are nevertheless concerned, because perhaps it will cool and he will come to rake the coals in order to heat it again.

For they were accustomed to heating it over a low flame. [Tosafot].

And we ask:

If so, should we not also issue a decree concerning perfume and sulfur

prohibiting one from placing them beneath vessels on Shabbat, out of concern lest he rake the coals? Yet we learned above in a beraita that this is permitted!?

And we answer:

There—

no,

we are not concerned that perhaps he will

rake them.

For

if

he rakes

the coals,

smoke rises from them

into the vessels,

soot

[the smoke of the wood].

And it is harmful to them

—to the vessels, because it blackens them.

And furthermore we ask: Since we are concerned lest he rake the coals,

should we not also issue a decree concerning bundles of flax

prohibiting one from leaving them in the oven because of this concern? Yet the Mishna teaches: “Beit Hillel permit.”

And we answer:

There

too, there is no concern that he will rake the coals. For

since they are harmed by

the bundles

wind

[air],

he does not expose them

to the oven by opening it in order to rake the coals.

And furthermore we ask: We learned: Beit Hillel permit placing

wool into a dye vat

and leaving it there on Shabbat. Why do they permit this? There

too, should we not issue a decree

lest he rake the coals?

Shmuel said:

What are we dealing with here?

With

a vat that is

removed

from above the fire.

And we ask again:

And

nevertheless,

let us be concerned lest

he

stir it

and mix it. This is a derivative of cooking, since he hastens its cooking . Even in the case of a vat removed from the fire, cooking is relevant, because it is still boiling .

And we answer: What are we dealing with here?

With

a vat that is also

removed

from the fire,

and

also

sealed

with clay around its cover. One must break the clay in order to uncover it and stir it. Since he must go to all that trouble, he will remember in the process that stirring is prohibited.

[Although according to one opinion below we are concerned even in the case of an oven sealed with clay that he may open it and rake the coals, stirring is different. One is not as accustomed to stirring as to raking. Alternatively, here the case is one in which the cover is sealed particularly tightly. Tosafot].

And now that the Master has said

that the reason for the prohibition against placing a pot on the fire on Shabbat eve is

a decree lest he rake the coals

on Shabbat—

a.

This raw pot

[containing raw meat], whose cooking had not begun at all before Shabbat,

it is permitted to place it

on

Shabbat eve at twilight in the oven.

There is no concern in this case lest he rake the coals.

What is the reason?

Since it is not fit

for him to eat it

that night

[on Friday night],

he takes his mind off it

until the next day,

and will not come to rake the coals. We are concerned about raking only with regard to cooked foods that are fit to be eaten that night. But with a cooked food that is not currently fit for eating and will be fit only the following day, there is no concern, because he will not rake the coals for the next day: there is ample time throughout the night, and in any event it will cook well even without his raking the coals.

For we are concerned about raking only with dishes fit to be eaten at night. But with a dish that is not presently fit for eating, but only for the next day, there is no concern. For he will not come to rake for the sake of tomorrow, since there is a great amount of time throughout the entire night, and meanwhile it will cook properly even without his raking.

[This is not comparable to cesses and lupins, which require extensive cooking; even when they are raw, we are concerned that he may rake the coals so that their cooking will be completed by the following day].

b.

And

likewise, if the pot has already

cooked

completely

, it is perfectly acceptable.

Since it no longer requires raking, there is no concern that he will rake the coals.

c. But a pot

that has cooked

partially

but has not cooked

completely,

is prohibited

to leave in the oven or upon a stove.

d.

And

even in the case of a pot that has cooked partially but not completely—

if he cast into it a piece of raw meat

[a piece that was not cooked at all], which is not fit to be eaten that night,

it is perfectly acceptable,

and it is permitted to leave it in the oven. Because of this piece, he takes his mind off the entire pot until the following day.

And now that the Master has said

above:

With regard to anything that is harmed by wind,

we are not concerned that he will rake the coals, because

he does not expose it

to the oven—

a.

This goat meat,

which he roasts in an oven whose mouth is sealed

and sealed

around it with clay, is certainly

perfectly acceptable.

For there are two factors in its favor: the mouth of the oven is sealed, and opening it requires considerable effort; and even apart from this, he will not open it, since goat meat is harmed by wind [and this applies specifically to roasted meat, but not to meat in a pot. Rosh].

b. And

ram meat

[a large ram]

whose mouth is not sealed

is certainly

prohibited.

For there are two factors to its detriment: the mouth of the oven is not sealed, so he can easily open it and rake the coals; and it is not harmed by wind [and even raw meat is prohibited. Since the discussion concerns roasting, it becomes fit to eat that night, and he does not take his mind off it. Tosafot].

c. If there is one factor permitting and one factor prohibiting, such as goat meat

that is harmed by wind but

which is harmed by the wind, but

whose mouth is not sealed, or ram meat

or

that is not harmed by wind, but whose mouth

which is not harmed by the wind, but whose opening

is sealed—

there is a dispute:

Rav Ashi permits,

as he holds that one reason is sufficient to permit it.

And Rav Yirmeya of Difti prohibits,

as he holds that both factors permitting it are required.

And we ask:

And according to Rav Ashi, who permits

when there is one factor in its favor—

but didn’t we learn: One may not roast meat, an onion, or an egg unless they will be roasted before nightfall?

And the Mishna states this without qualification regarding meat. According to Rav Ashi, goat meat should be permitted even when the oven’s mouth is not sealed.

And we answer:

There, in the Mishna, the case concerns

ram meat

whose mouth is not sealed, so there are two factors to its detriment.

Some say:

It is permitted to place goat meat

in the oven, since it is harmed by wind.

in the oven, since it is harmed by the wind.

Whether the oven’s mouth is

the oven opening is

sealed

with clay,

or whether it is

it is

not sealed,

according to everyone it is

perfectly acceptable.

And likewise, ram meat

too, when its oven’s mouth

when the oven opening

is sealed, it is perfectly acceptable, even though it is not harmed by wind, because one factor is sufficient to permit it.

is sealed, it is entirely proper, even though wind does not harm it, because one reason is sufficient to permit.

They disagree in the case of ram meat

concerning

that is placed in an oven whose mouth is covered, but

placed in an oven whose opening is covered, but

whose covering is not sealed with clay.

with clay.

Rav Ashi permits,

because he holds that we are not concerned that he will remove the oven’s covering and rake the coals.

And Rav Yirmeya of Difti prohibits,

because whenever there is not even one factor permitting it [that it is harmed by wind or that it is sealed], we are concerned that he will uncover the mouth of the oven and rake the coals

. And we ask:

And according to Rav Ashi, who permits

even when there is no factor permitting it—

but didn’t we learn: One may not roast meat, an onion, or an egg unless they will be roasted before nightfall!?

And we answer:

There—

with meat

that is placed

upon coals

[without an oven at all]. Since the coals are completely exposed, we are certainly concerned that he will rake them.

Ravina said: This raw pumpkin

[a pumpkin that was not cooked at all]

it is perfectly acceptable

to place in the oven on Shabbat eve.

Since it is harmed by wind,

it is comparable to goat meat.

He will not come to uncover the mouth of the oven and rake the coals.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: One may not sell

to a gentile except for enough time for him to reach a nearby place!

The Sages taught: Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his object to a gentile, lend it to him, loan him money, or give it to him as a gift,

unless there is

enough time for

the gentile

to reach his home

before Shabbat. But if the gentile will need to transport it on Shabbat, this is prohibited, because people may confuse this with the case of the gentile acting as his agent, and permit sending a gentile to perform work for him on Shabbat.

And Beit Hillel say:

It is permitted to sell it to him as long as there is

enough time for

the gentile

to reach the house adjacent to the wall of

the city to which the gentile is going, because the gentile can leave the object in that house. It is not necessary that he be able to reach his own home.

Rabbi Akiva says:

It is permitted to sell it to him even if he will not have enough time to reach his city at all before Shabbat. It is necessary only that there be enough time

for the gentile to leave

the

the entrance of the Jew’s home

before Shabbat

. Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda said:

Rabbi Akiva did not come to disagree with Beit Hillel. Rather,

the words of Rabbi Akiva are precisely the words of Beit Hillel.

And Rabbi Akiva came only to explain the words of Beit Hillel.

He disagrees with the first tanna only in explaining their words.

The Sages taught: Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his leaven to a gentile unless he knows that it will be consumed before Passover,

because the Jew is commanded to remove it, so that it will not remain in the world during Passover [Rashi, Pesachim 21]

. And Beit Hillel say: As long as it is permitted to eat it, it is permitted to sell it

[and this accords with Rabbi Meir, who says that throughout the fifth hour it is permitted both for eating and for benefit]. We are not concerned that the chametz will be found in the gentile’s possession during Pesach, since it is no longer in the Jew’s domain.