Shabbat 19b — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Akiva says: ![](pamud.bmp "

")

he shall not complete,

for it is forbidden to leave them there so that their squeezing will be completed on Shabbat .

And Rabbi Elazar

son Peda[t, the amora]

said:

the Mishna—

it is Rabbi Elazar

son Shammua [the tannai]

!

For we learned: honeycombs that he crushed on the eve of Shabbat, and

the honey emerged from them by itself on Shabbat,

it is forbidden,

to eat that honey on that Shabbat. For the Sages decreed concerning liquids that flowed out by themselves on Shabbat and prohibited them on that Shabbat, so that people would not come to squeeze them on Shabbat.

And Rabbi Elazar permits.

Since they were crushed before Shabbat, there is no longer a Torah prohibition in squeezing them, and their squeezing is prohibited only rabbinically. Therefore we do not decree concerning them lest he squeeze, and they do not have the prohibition of “liquids that flowed out.”

And likewise the tannai of the Mishna holds this. And for that reason Beit Shammai did not decree concerning olives and grapes crushed before Shabbat.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina,

who established the Mishna as following Rabbi Ishmael,

for what reason did he not say like Rabbi Elazar,

that the Mishna is Rabbi Elazar?

He could say to you,

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina: From Rabbi Elazar we still have not heard that there is no Torah squeezing concerning liquids that emerge by themselves. For specifically

there,

with honey,

it is

that he does not consider it a labor according to Rabbi Elazar, because

initially,

while it is inside the honeycombs, the honey is called

food, and

even

at the end,

after it emerges, it is still called

food.

And it is considered a derivative of threshing only when the name of the object changes through threshing or squeezing, such as when he extracts food from refuse or liquid from food, but not when he extracts food from food .

But

here,

with olives and grapes,

initially,

while the liquids are inside them, they are

food.

But now,

after they flowed out, they are

liquid.

Therefore there is Torah squeezing concerning them, even after they have been crushed.

And Rabbi Elazar could say to you,

even though there is no proof from honey, nevertheless

we have explicitly heard from Rabbi Elazar

explicitly,

that even olives and grapes are likewise permitted,

when he crushed them while it was still day.

For when Rav Hoshaya came from Nehardea, he came and brought a baraita in his hand.

For it was taught:

olives and grapes that he crushed on the eve of Shabbat,

and there emerged

the liquids from them on Shabbat

by themselves—

they are forbidden

to be drunk on that Shabbat.

And Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon permit.

It is explicit that whenever the liquids are destined to emerge by themselves, there is no liability for squeezing them according to Rabbi Elazar; therefore the decree concerning liquids that flowed out does not apply to them.

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina

who does not establish the Mishna according to their view, does so because this

baraita was not heard by him.

And now the Gemara explains what the reasoning of Rabbi Elazar [the amora] is:

And Rabbi Elazar,

who establishes the Mishna as following Rabbi Elazar,

for what reason did he not say like Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina

that the Mishna follows Rabbi Ishmael?

He could say to you,

Rabbi Elazar: There is no proof from Rabbi Ishmael concerning olives and grapes beneath the beam, that there is no squeezing concerning them. For was it not

stated concerning it

that dispute between Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva—

Rava son of Hanina said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

There are three types of labor in squeezing: one, “crushing”; two, “pounding,” which is more than crushing; three, “grinding,” which is more than pounding.

If he only crushed them and they are still

lacking pounding,

everyone agrees

that there is Torah squeezing concerning them, and it is forbidden to load them beneath the beam on the eve of Shabbat .

everyone agrees that squeezing them is prohibited by Torah law, and it is forbidden to load them beneath the press before Shabbat . They disagree concerning

For they disagree concerning olives and grapes that have already been pounded, and are

lacking

only

grinding.

And in these Rabbi Ishmael permits.

And these,

the olives and grapes of the Mishna,

also—

are considered to be lacking pounding.

For only crushing has been performed on them. And loading them is their pounding, and it is their grinding. And concerning these we have not heard that Rabbi Ishmael permits.

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

Oil

remaining in the corners of the oil press, which is

the property of

the

press workers [

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

and

also

mats of the press workers

with which they cover the olives—

Rav prohibited

moving them on Shabbat because of muktzeh. For the oil beneath the beam was set aside during twilight, since it is not customary to lower the beam until the emergence of the oil is completed . And since during twilight he still does not know when the oil will finish emerging, he diverted his mind from it [Penei Yehoshua]. And the mats are muktzeh because of repulsiveness. [Ritva].

And Shmuel permits.

Because he does not recognize muktzeh, as will be explained below.

These pairs of mats [

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

Rav prohibited

moving them because of muktzeh, for they are muktzeh because of repulsiveness.

And Shmuel permits,

because he does not recognize muktzeh, as stated.

Rav Nahman said: a goat

that is kept to use

for its milk [

and not to slaughter it and eat its flesh],

and

likewise

a ewe

that is kept

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

oxen kept for plowing],

and dates for commerce

which are not intended to be eaten immediately, but to be taken elsewhere for trade—

Rav prohibited

moving all these on a Festival! For anything that is not prepared from the eve of the Festival for use on the Festival is forbidden because of muktzeh.

And Shmuel said: it is permitted

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

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

For Rav holds like Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is a prohibition of muktzeh concerning anything that was not designated from the eve of Shabbat for use on Shabbat. And Shmuel holds like Rabbi Shimon, who does not hold there is a prohibition of muktzeh [apart from certain cases that will be explained later in the tractate].

It must be emphasized that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon did not disagree about the basic enactment of the prohibition of muktzeh, which already existed in the time of King Solomon. Likewise, they did not disagree about the prohibition of muktzeh that Nehemiah decreed concerning vessels, as explained on 123b.

Their entire dispute concerns things fit for use, vessels and foods, except that the person does not intend to use them on Shabbat.

For Rabbi Yehuda considers this setting aside, which a person sets aside intentionally, and the status of muktzeh takes effect by virtue of the person’s setting aside.

Whereas Rabbi Shimon does not consider the fact that a person does not intend to use an object on Shabbat to be intentional setting aside. But regarding something that it is clear the person sets aside, Rabbi Shimon agrees that the setting aside takes effect by virtue of his setting it aside.

That student who ruled [

who gave a ruling]

in Harata of Argiz [

a city called “Harata,” which a man named “Argiz” built],

like Rabbi Shimon,

and permitted muktzeh.

And Rav Hamnuna placed him under a ban,

who lived in that city.

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

Do we not hold like Rabbi Shimon,

and do we not recognize muktzeh?

And we answer:

It was Rav’s place,

this place. Therefore,

he should not have acted this way,

and issued a ruling contrary to Rav.

We hold: on Shabbat, food and liquids may be rescued from a fire. And although the Sages prohibited taking them from a private domain to a shared courtyard, they permitted doing so for the purpose of rescuing food for the three Shabbat meals. And we learned below: one may rescue a basket full of loaves, even though it contains enough for one hundred meals. And although they permitted it only for the needs of three meals, since he rescues all of them at once, it is permitted even beyond the need.

These two students—

one rescued

from the fire more than three meals, specifically

in one vessel!

But he did not take them out in two vessels. Since he had already taken out three meals in one vessel, he could no longer take out more in another vessel, for this is not considered as though it were at once.

And one

student

rescued

food for many meals even

in four or five vessels!

For he folded them all into one large vessel and took it out at one time .

And they disagree

these two students

in the dispute between Rabbah son of Zavda and Rav Huna!

For below we raise a difficulty from that which was taught, “one may rescue” food for three meals, against the Mishna which teaches, “one may rescue a basket full of loaves, even if it contains food for one hundred meals.” Rav Huna answers: here, it is when he comes to rescue in one vessel; and here, it is when he comes to fold many vessels together. This student who took out only in one vessel holds like him. And Rabbah son of Zavda does not distinguish in this manner, but in another matter. The other student holds like him.

Mishna:

a.

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

before Shabbat

unless

there is enough time

for them to roast while it is still day!

But if their roasting will be completed on Shabbat, it is forbidden, for we are concerned lest he rake the coals on Shabbat to hasten their roasting.

And likewise

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

of the bread and the flat cake

while it is still day!

And not so that their baking will be completed on Shabbat itself, because we are concerned lest he rake the coals.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

one may not place bread in an oven except when

enough time remains for the

side

that is underneath it to form a crust!

And the Gemara explains it.

b.

one lowers the

sacrifice of

the Paschal lamb into the oven

on the eve of Shabbat

at nightfall,

and it continues roasting on Shabbat night! Although ordinarily it is forbidden to do so, as we learned in the first clause. And the reason is explained in the Gemara.

and

likewise

one kindles the fire [

the fire]

in the bonfire of the Chamber of the Hearth

that was in the Temple, on the eve of Shabbat before darkness! And we are not concerned lest the priests kindle it on Shabbat.

For it was a large chamber, and the priests would warm themselves there by a fire that was always burning. [And they needed this because they walked barefoot on the marble floor of the Temple courtyard, as we derive: since the floor is sacred and the sacred vessels are sacred, just as with a sacred vessel nothing may intervene between it and the vessel, so too with the floor nothing may intervene between it and the floor].