Shabbat 18b — the Talmud in English

forbidden

that work be performed within it —

if so, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

the incense and sulfur—why did Beit Shammai permit them

[for we established that beraita according to their view]?

And we answer:

there

the sulfur and the incense are placed

on the ground,

and not inside a vessel.

And further we raise an objection:

a tub,

in which the beer is contained [for it is impossible to place the beer on the ground], and the barley remains soaked in it for a time longer than eight days, with Shabbat included,

and

so too

a lamp

that is burning on Shabbat,

and

so too

a pot

that is upon the stove and is cooking on Shabbat,

and

so too

a spit

on which there is a roast placed in the oven on Shabbat—they too should be forbidden on account of the resting of vessels.

And for what reason did

Beit Shammai

permit them?

And we answer: This case, in which there is no prohibition on account of the resting of vessels, is speaking where

the

owners

rendered them completely ownerless—

the tub, the lamp, the pot, and the spit. And since they are not his, he is no longer warned concerning them.

And further we consider this matter:

Who is the tannaitic authority for that which the Sages taught:

a.

A woman may not fill a pot with vetches and lupines

[types of legumes],

and place it in the oven on the eve of Shabbat at twilight

so that they will cook during Shabbat.

b.

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

on

the eve of Shabbat at twilight.

c.

And if

he transgressed and

did so,

even

at the conclusion of Shabbat

they are

forbidden

for consumption,

until enough time has passed for them to be prepared.

That is, they are permitted for consumption only once the amount of time required for their cooking has passed after Shabbat. For after this time, he no longer benefits from their having begun to cook on Shabbat. But beforehand they are forbidden, so that he not benefit from work performed in violation on Shabbat .

And it entered our minds that it is forbidden to do so because of the resting of vessels .

And we inquire:

Shall we say that our Mishna is according to Beit Shammai and not according to Beit Hillel,

who do not hold of the resting of vessels?

And we reject this:

You may even say that it is according to Beit Hillel

and it is also well. For the reason that it is forbidden to place vetches and water in the oven is not because of the resting of vessels, but because of

a decree lest he rake

on Shabbat

the coals

in order to hasten the cooking of the legumes, and he will thereby be kindling on Shabbat.

And it is speaking of raw vetches and lupines, whose cooking had not yet begun before Shabbat. And specifically these are forbidden, because they require extensive cooking, and the entire night and day are not sufficient for them. Therefore we are concerned lest he come to rake, so that their cooking will be completed by the conclusion of Shabbat. But other kinds of raw dishes whose cooking had not begun before Shabbat may be placed in the oven at twilight, as will be explained below .

And concerning water, it teaches us that even though there is sufficient time for it to become hot even without raking the coals, nevertheless we are concerned, because perhaps it will become cold and he will come to rake the coals in order to warm it again.

For they were accustomed to warm them over a low fire. [Tosafot].

And we object:

If so, we should also decree concerning incense and sulfur

that they may not be left on Shabbat beneath the vessels, out of concern lest he rake the coals. Yet we learned above in a beraita that it is permitted!?

And we answer:

There—

no,

we are not concerned lest he

rake them.

For

if

he rakes

the coals,

there rises from them

in the vessels

smoke

[the smoke of the wood].

And it is harmful to them

this smoke, because it blackens them.

And further we object: Since we are concerned lest he rake the coals—

we should also decree concerning bundles of flax

that they may not be left in the oven because of this concern. Yet our Mishna teaches: “Beit Hillel permit.”

And we answer:

There

too there is no concern about raking, for

since it is harmful to them

the bundles

[the] wind

[air],

he will not expose them

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

And further we object: We learned: Beit Hillel permit placing

wool in a vat,

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

we should decree

because of the possibility that he will rake.

Samuel said:

What are we dealing with here?

With a vat

that is

removed

from above the fire.

And we object again:

And

nevertheless,

let us be concerned lest

he

stir it

and mix it. And stirring is a derivative of cooking, for it hastens its cooking . And cooking applies even with a vat removed from the fire, 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. And since he must trouble himself so greatly, he will remember in the course of it that it is forbidden to stir.

[And although according to one opinion below we are concerned even with an oven sealed with clay, that he will open it and rake in it, stirring is different. It is not so customary to stir as to rake. Alternatively, here it is speaking when the cover is fastened especially tightly. Tosafot].

And now that the Master has said

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

a decree lest he rake the coals

on Shabbat—

a.

This raw pot

[containing raw meat], whose cooking did not begin at all before Shabbat,

is permitted to place

on

the eve of Shabbat at twilight in the oven.

And we are not concerned in its case lest he rake.

What is the reason? —

Since it is not fit

to eat it

at night

[on Friday night],

he diverts his mind from it

until the next day,

and he will not come to rake 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.

[And this is not comparable to vetches and lupines, which require extensive cooking, and even when they are raw we are concerned lest he rake concerning them so that their cooking will be completed by the next day].

b.

And

so too if the pot has already

cooked

as much as it needs ,

it is entirely proper.

Since it no longer requires raking, there is no concern lest he rake concerning it.

c. But a pot

that has cooked

a little

but has not cooked

as much as it needs,

is forbidden

to leave in the oven or upon the stove.

d.

And even with a pot that has cooked but has not cooked as much as it needs—

if he cast into it a raw piece

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

it is entirely proper,

and it is permitted to leave it in the oven. Because of this piece, he diverts his mind from the entire pot until the next day.

And now that the Master has said

above:

Every item that the wind harms

we are not concerned in its case about raking, because

he will not expose it

to the oven—

a.

This goat meat,

and he roasts it in the oven while the mouth of the oven is closed

and

sealed

around it with clay, is certainly

entirely proper.

For there are two factors favoring leniency. The mouth of the oven is sealed, and it is a great effort to open it. And even without this, he will not open it, since wind harms goat meat [and specifically a roast, but this reason does not apply to a pot. Rosh].

b. And meat

of a ram

[a large ram]

whose mouth is not sealed

is certainly

forbidden.

For there are two factors favoring stringency. The mouth of the oven is not sealed, and he can easily open it and rake in it. And wind does not harm it [and even raw meat is forbidden. Since the matter concerns a roast, it becomes fit to eat at night, and he has not diverted his mind from it. Tosafot].

c. And if there is one factor favoring permission and one factor favoring prohibition, such as meat

of a goat,

which wind harms, but

is not sealed

at the mouth of the oven, or meat

of a ram,

which wind does not harm, but the mouth of the oven

is sealed—

it is a dispute:

Rav Ashi permits,

for he holds that one reason is sufficient to permit.

And Rav Yirmeya of Difti forbids,

for he holds that both are required for permission.

And we object:

And according to Rav Ashi, who permits

when there is one factor favoring permission—

but we learned: One may roast neither meat, nor an onion, nor an egg, unless they will be roasted while it is still day.

And it teaches simply “meat.” According to Rav Ashi, goat meat should be permitted even when it is not sealed.

And we answer:

There, in the Mishna, it is speaking of meat

of a ram, and its mouth is not sealed

at the mouth of the oven, so that there are two factors favoring stringency.

Some say:

It is permitted to place meat

of a goat

in the oven, since wind harms it. And

whether

its mouth is

sealed

or

whether

it is

not sealed,

according to everyone

it is entirely proper.

And likewise, meat

of a ram too,

where

the mouth of the oven

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

They disagree

concerning meat

of a ram

placed in the oven covered, but its cover

is not sealed

with clay.

For Rav Ashi permits,

because he holds that we are not concerned that he will remove the cover of the oven and rake.

And Rav Yirmeya of Difti forbids,

because wherever there is not even one factor favoring permission [wind harming it or its being sealed], we are concerned that he will uncover the mouth of the oven and rake .

And we object:

And according to Rav Ashi, who permits

even when there is no factor favoring permission—

but we learned: One may roast neither meat, nor an onion, nor an egg, unless they will be roasted while it is still day!?

And we answer:

There—

with meat

that is placed

upon coals

[coals] without an oven at all. Since the coals are completely exposed, we are certainly concerned about raking.

Ravina said: This raw pumpkin

[a pumpkin that has not been cooked at all]

it is entirely proper

to place in the oven on the eve of Shabbat.

Since wind harms it—

it is like goat meat.

And he will not come to uncover the mouth of the oven and rake.

We learned in the Mishna:

Beit Shammai say: One may not sell

to a gentile except sufficiently in advance for him to reach a nearby place!

The Sages taught: Beit Shammai say: A person may not sell his object to a gentile, nor lend it to him, nor loan it to him, nor give it to him as a gift,

except when there is

enough time for the gentile

to reach

his house

before Shabbat. But if the gentile will need to transport it on Shabbat, it is forbidden, because he may come to confuse this with his agent, and they will 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 place the object in that house. We do not require that he be able to reach his actual house.

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. We require only an amount of time in which there is

enough time for the gentile to leave

the

entrance of the Israelite’s house

before Shabbat .

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda said:

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

these are the words of Rabbi Akiva, and these are the words of Beit Hillel.

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

And he disagrees with the first Tanna in the explanation of 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 Israelite is commanded concerning it to remove it, so that it not exist 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, that throughout the fifth hour it is permitted for eating and for benefit]. And we are not concerned that the leaven is found in the gentile’s possession during Passover, for it is already no longer in the Jew’s domain.