Shabbat 19b (יט:) — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Akiva says:

he may not finish,

as it is prohibited to leave them there so that their pressing will be completed on Shabbat .

And Rabbi Elazar

ben Pedat [the

amora]

said: The Mishna is the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar

ben Shamua [the

tanna]!

As we learned: Honeycombs that one crushed on the eve of Shabbat, and from which

the honey emerged on its own on Shabbat,

it is prohibited

to eat that honey during that Shabbat. For the Sages decreed that liquids that flowed on their own on Shabbat are prohibited during that Shabbat, so that people would not come to press them on Shabbat.

And Rabbi Elazar permits.

Since they were crushed before Shabbat, pressing them no longer entails a Torah prohibition, and the prohibition against pressing them is only rabbinic. Therefore, we do not issue a decree concerning them lest one press them, and the prohibition of “liquids that flowed” does not apply to them.

And the tanna of the Mishna likewise holds this way. That is why Beit Shammai did not issue a decree concerning olives and grapes that were crushed before Shabbat.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Hanina,

who established the Mishna as following Rabbi Yishmael,

why did he not say that the Mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar,

as the Mishna is Rabbi Elazar’s opinion?

He can say to you,

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Hanina: From Rabbi Elazar we still have not heard that pressing liquids that emerge on their own entails no Torah prohibition. For specifically

there,

with regard to honey,

it

is not considered a labor according to Rabbi Elazar, because

initially,

while it is still inside the honeycombs, the honey is called

food, and

even

ultimately,

after it has emerged, it is still called

food.

Pressing is considered a derivative of threshing only when the name or status of the substance changes through threshing or pressing—for example, when one extracts food from waste or liquid from food. But not when one extracts food from food .

But

here,

with regard to olives and grapes,

initially,

while the liquids are still inside them, they are

food.

Now,

after they have flowed out, they are

liquid. Therefore, pressing them entails a Torah prohibition, even after they have been crushed.

liquid. Therefore, squeezing them is prohibited by Torah law, even after they have been crushed.

And Rabbi Elazar can say to you,

although there is no proof from honey, nevertheless,

we have explicitly heard Rabbi Elazar

say

that even olives and grapes are permitted,

when they were crushed before Shabbat.

For when Rav Hoshaya came from Nehardea, he came and brought a Mishna with him.

As it was taught:

Olives and grapes that one crushed on the eve of Shabbat,

and

the liquids emerged from them on Shabbat

on their own—

they are prohibited

to drink during that Shabbat.

And Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon permit.

This clearly demonstrates that whenever the liquids are destined to emerge on their own, one is not liable for pressing them according to Rabbi Elazar; therefore, the decree concerning liquids that flowed does not apply to them.

And Rabbi Yosei ben Hanina,

who did not establish the Mishna as following their opinion, did so because he

had not heard this beraita.

The Gemara now explains Rabbi Elazar’s reasoning [the

amora]: And Rabbi Elazar,

who established the Mishna as following Rabbi Elazar—

why did he not say, like Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Hanina,

that the Mishna follows Rabbi Yishmael?

He can say to you,

Rabbi Elazar: There is no proof from Rabbi Yishmael with regard to the olives and grapes beneath the beam, that pressing them entails no prohibition. For

was it not stated concerning it,

that dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva—

Rava bar Hanina said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

There are three types of labor involved in pressing: first, “crushing”; second, “pounding,” which is more than crushing; and third, “grinding,” which is more than pounding.

If he merely crushed them and they still

require pounding,

everyone agrees

that pressing them is a Torah prohibition, and it is prohibited to place them beneath the beam on the eve of Shabbat .

They disagree with regard to

olives and grapes that have already been pounded and require

nothing

except

grinding.

With regard to these, Rabbi Yishmael permits them.

And these,

the olives and grapes mentioned in the Mishna,

also—

are comparable to things requiring pounding.

For only crushing has been performed on them. Their being placed beneath the beam constitutes their pounding and their grinding. With regard to these, we have not heard Rabbi Yishmael permit them.

Therefore, it was necessary to establish the Mishna as following Rabbi Elazar, who likewise discusses olives and grapes that require pounding .

Oil

remaining in the corners of the olive press, which is

the

property of the

olive-press workers [

given to them as a gift by the owner of the olives],

and

likewise

mats belonging to the olive-press workers

with which they cover the olives—

Rav prohibited

moving them on Shabbat because of muktze. The oil beneath the beam was set aside at twilight, since it is not customary to remove the beam until the oil has finished flowing . And since at twilight he still did not know when the oil would finish emerging, he diverted his mind from it [Penei Yehoshua]. And the mats are muktze because they are repulsive. [Ritva].

And Shmuel permits.

Because he does not accept the prohibition of muktze, as will be explained below.

These pairs of mats [

a pair of mats with which they cover the merchandise on the ship] ,

Rav prohibits

moving them because of muktze, as they are indeed muktze because they are repulsive.

And Shmuel permits,

because he does not accept the prohibition of muktze, as stated.

Rav Naḥman said: A goat

that is kept for

its milk [

and not to slaughter it and eat its meat],

and

likewise a

ewe

kept

for its wool, and a hen for its eggs, and oxen for plowing [

oxen kept for plowing],

and dates for commerce

that are not intended to be eaten immediately, but to be transported elsewhere for commercial purposes—

Rav prohibited

moving all of these on a Festival! For anything that was not prepared before the Festival for use on the Festival is prohibited because of muktze.

And Shmuel said: It is permitted

to slaughter them and eat them on the Festival, and he does not accept the prohibition of muktze in such a case.

And they disagree concerning the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon!

For Rav holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that muktze is prohibited with regard to anything that was not designated before Shabbat for use on Shabbat. And Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who does not accept the prohibition of muktze [except in certain cases that will be explained later in the tractate].

It should be emphasized that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon did not disagree about the basic enactment prohibiting muktze, which already existed in the time of King Solomon. Nor did they disagree about the prohibition of muktze that Nehemiah enacted with regard to vessels, as explained on page 123b.

Their entire dispute concerns objects fit for use—vessels and food—that a person does not intend to use on Shabbat.

Rabbi Yehuda considers this designation: The person sets the object aside in his mind, and the status of muktze takes effect by virtue of the person’s setting it aside.

Rabbi Shimon, by contrast, does not consider the fact that a person does not intend to use the object on Shabbat to constitute a deliberate designation. But with regard to something that it is clear a person sets aside, Rabbi Shimon agrees that the designation takes effect by virtue of his setting it aside.

A certain student who issued a ruling [

who ruled]

in Ḥarta of Argiz [

a city called “Ḥarta,” which was built by a man named “Argiz”],

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

and permitted muktze.

And Rav Hamnuna placed him under a ban,

as he lived in that city.

And we are astonished: Why did he place him under a ban?

Do we not hold in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

and therefore do not accept muktze?

And we answer:

It was Rav’s place,

that is, this was Rav’s locale. Therefore,

he should not have acted this way

and issued a ruling contrary to Rav.

The established halakha is that on Shabbat one may rescue food and drink from a fire. Although the Sages prohibited removing objects from a private domain to a jointly owned courtyard, they permitted doing so in order to rescue food sufficient for three Shabbat meals. And we learned below: One may rescue a basket full of loaves, even though it contains enough food for one hundred meals. Although permission was granted only for the needs of three meals, since he rescues them all at once, it is permitted even when there is more than necessary.

These two students—

one would rescue

more than three meals from the fire, specifically

in a single vessel!

But he would not remove them in two vessels. Since he had already removed three meals in one vessel, he could no longer remove more in another vessel, since that is not considered doing so all at once.

And one

of the students

would rescue

food for many meals, even

in four or five vessels!

For he would fold them all into one large vessel and remove it at once .

And they disagree,

these two students,

over the dispute between Rabba bar Zavda and Rav Huna!

For below we challenge the statement that one may “rescue” food for three meals with the Mishna that states: “One may rescue a basket full of loaves, even if it contains food for one hundred meals.” Rav Huna resolves the contradiction: Here, the case is one who comes to rescue in a single vessel; there, the case is one who folds many vessels together. And this student, who removed food only in one vessel, agrees with Rav Huna. Rabba bar Zavda does not distinguish in this manner, but distinguishes in another matter. The other student agrees with him.

Mishna:

a.

One may not roast meat, an onion, or an egg

before Shabbat

unless

there is sufficient time

for them to roast before Shabbat!

But if their roasting will be completed on Shabbat, it is prohibited, because we are concerned that one might stoke the coals on Shabbat to hasten their roasting.

And likewise,

one may not place bread in an oven at nightfall, nor a cake upon the coals, unless its surface will crust

—the surface of the bread and the cake—

before Shabbat!

It is not permitted merely because their baking will be completed on Shabbat itself, since we are concerned that one might stoke the coals.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

One may not place bread in an oven except when

the lower

side

of it will crust!

The Gemara explains this statement.

b.

One lowers the

Paschal

offering into the oven

on the eve of Shabbat

at nightfall,

and it continues roasting throughout the night of Shabbat! Although generally it is prohibited to do so, as taught in the first clause, the reason is explained in the Gemara.

And

likewise,

one kindles the fire [

the flame]

in the Chamber of the Hearth’s bonfire

in the Temple on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. We are not concerned that the priests might stoke it on Shabbat.

It was a large chamber, and the priests would warm themselves there by a fire that was kept burning constantly. [They needed this because they walked barefoot on the marble floor of the Temple courtyard, as we derive: Just as with regard to consecrated vessels, nothing may intervene between the vessel and the person handling it, so too with regard to the floor, nothing may intervene between the person and the floor].