Shabbat 20a — the Talmud in English

But

in the provinces

it is forbidden to do so, for we are concerned lest he complete its ignition on Shabbat. Rather, one may ignite the fire in the wood only if there is sufficient time

for the fire to seize most of it

before Shabbat.

Rabbi Yehuda says: With coals

it is sufficient that the fire seize them

to any extent.

Even though there is not enough time for the fire to seize most of them, once the fire has seized them to any extent, it is no longer necessary to stoke them, for it is not their manner to be extinguished.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One may roast meat, an onion, or an egg only if they will be roasted during the day, before Shabbat.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

And how much

is the measure of roasting required to consider them roasted during the day, before Shabbat?

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rav: So that they will be roasted during the day, before Shabbat, like the food of ben Derosai.

Ben Derosai was a bandit, and he cooked his food to one-third of its cooking. Since they were roasted to this measure before Shabbat, it is once again permitted to leave them on Shabbat, for there is no longer concern lest he stoke the coals.

And we prove it:

It was also stated: Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Anything that is

cooked by a Jew

like the food of ben Derosai—

from then on

there is no

prohibition in its completion of cooking by a gentile

on account of

the prohibition of

“food cooked by gentiles”.

It follows that after the cooking of ben Derosai it is already considered cooked. Here too, no decree is made concerning it on account of lest he stoke.

It was taught in a beraita: Hananiah says: Anything that is

cooked before Shabbat

like the food of ben Derosai—

it is permitted to leave it on Shabbat upon a stove,

so that its cooking will be completed on Shabbat. And even though

the stove is not

the stove

raked

of coals,

and it is not even

the stove

covered [with ashes, so that the heat of the coals is diminished], we are not concerned lest he stoke the coals, since it is already considered cooked. And this is in accordance with Rav, who says: “So that they will be roasted during the day, before Shabbat, like the food of ben Derosai.”

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not place bread. Rabbi Eliezer says: It is sufficient that its lower surface crust.

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is sufficient that its lower surface crust.

They raised a dilemma before them:

The usual method of baking loaves of bread is to attach the doughs to the walls of the oven all around. Therefore, it must be considered to which side of the loaf Rabbi Eliezer refers as

“lower.”

Is it

the

side of the loaf

that is

attached

to

the wall of the

oven, and according to this Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent than the first tanna? For according to the first tanna, it is sufficient that the surface of the loaf facing the interior of the oven crust, since it crusts more quickly than the side attached to the wall.

.

Or perhaps

he calls

“lower” the

side

that

faces

the fire [inside, toward the cavity of the oven]. And according to this Rabbi Eliezer comes to be lenient, for according to this side the first tanna holds that all its surfaces must crust during the day, before Shabbat, including the side attached to the oven [Tosafot according to Rashi].

.

And we resolve it:

Come and hear: Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not place bread in the oven unless its surfaces attached to the oven crust

during the day, before Shabbat. And these are what are called in our Mishna “its lower surface.”

We learned in the Mishna:

They lower the Paschal offering

into the oven at twilight.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

What is the reason

that it is permitted to do so? But it teaches in the first clause: One may not roast “unless they will be roasted during the day, before Shabbat.”

And we answer:

Because the members of the group

of the Paschal offering

are vigilant.

We are not concerned that they will come to stoke the coals.

And we are astonished:

If not so,

that they are vigilant,

would they not

have permitted them to do so?

But the Master said:

With regard to

kid goat meat—

whether

if it

is smeared [with dough]

over the mouth of the oven,

and whether

if it

is not smeared, it is well

to leave it on Shabbat, even if it has not reached the cooking of the food of ben Derosai. Since the wind harms it, we are not concerned that he will uncover the mouth of the oven and stoke. And the Paschal offering is brought from a lamb in its first year, and in any event we have no need to be concerned about it. Why, then, was the reason “they are vigilant” necessary? And we answer:

There,

where we permitted it with regard to a kid goat, it is speaking of kid goat meat

that is cut

into pieces, and therefore the wind harms it.

But

here,

with regard to the Paschal offering,

it is not cut

the lamb into pieces, but it is roasted whole, as it is written: “with its head and with its entrails.” And if he uncovers the mouth of the oven, the wind will not ruin it. Therefore, we are concerned about stoking, were it not for the fact that they are vigilant.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one may ignite the fire

in the fire-room hearth.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

From where are these matters

that we do this, and are not concerned that they will kindle it on Shabbat, as we are concerned in the provinces?

Rav Huna said:

It is written:

“You shall not kindle fire in any of your settlements

on the day of Shabbat.” And we infer:

“In any of your settlements”

specifically

you may not kindle; but you may kindle in the fire-room hearth,

which is in the Temple and is not considered “in your settlements.”

Rav Ashi objected to this: If so,

since even the fire in the fire-room, which is not part of the sacrificial service, was excluded by “in your settlements”—

even on Shabbat

itself

also

it should be permitted to kindle fire in the fire-room hearth. Yet our Mishna teaches only that, with regard to the rabbinic decree, on the eve of Shabbat we are not concerned in the Temple.

Rather, Rav Hisda said: The verse

“in any of your settlements” did not come for this purpose. Rather,

when it came, it came to permit the limbs and fats

of sacrifices [of the] eve of Shabbat;

that is what it came

to say: They burn them throughout the entire night, even on Shabbat. But the fire-room hearth certainly does not override Shabbat, for it is not a need of the Most High, but a need of the priests. And the reason that they did not decree concerning it on the eve of Shabbat at twilight is that

the priests are vigilant,

and all of them are learned in Torah and fearful. They remember the prohibition of kindling on Shabbat and will not come to stoke after nightfall.

We learned in the Mishna:

And in the provinces

one may not kindle at twilight, but

only if the fire will seize

most of them during the day, before Shabbat.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

What is “most of them”

of the wood?

Rav said:

That the fire seize

most

of

each and every one

of the pieces of wood; it is not sufficient that the fire seize most of the number of the pieces of wood. Rather, if there is one piece of wood in which the fire has not seized most of it, we are concerned that he will come to complete its kindling after nightfall.

And Shmuel said: If the fire has seized the wood to the point

If the fire has taken hold of the wood to the point

that

they will no longer say, “Bring thin wood

and let us place it beneath them”

in order to kindle them, we apply to them “the fire has seized most of it.” It is permitted to kindle them even if the fire has not seized each and every piece of wood.

place it beneath them”

.

Rav Hiyya the tanna taught this in support of Shmuel:

It is written concerning the lighting of the lamps of the candelabrum: “To raise a continual lamp.” And we expound that the mitzva of kindling is until

the flame rises by itself, and not that the flame

of the candelabrum

rises by means of another thing.

It follows that in such a manner it is considered kindling. And where Scripture was particular that it not be extinguished, as with the candelabrum, it is sufficient that the flame rise by itself; it is not necessary that the wick burn through most of it. And the same is true here with regard to a fire [Rashi in one interpretation, and Tosafot. Rashi further cited those who teach it with regard to kindling a fire on the eve of Shabbat. That is precisely the law of the Mishna, and in accordance with Shmuel].

And we raise an objection concerning it:

A single piece of wood—

how is it permitted to ignite the fire in it on the eve of Shabbat?

Rav said:

Once the fire gathers within the wood, until it burns

most of its thickness.

And some say:

Once the fire seizes

most of its circumference

of the wood on the outside. Even though it has not seized most of it on the inside, it is permitted. And conversely, if the fire seized most of it on the inside but not most of its circumference, it is forbidden.

Rav Pappa said:

Since it is a dispute,

therefore

we proceed stringently, and require both.

We require most of its thickness, and we require

also

most of its circumference.

And we say: Let us say that this dispute is a dispute among

the tannaim.

.

For it was taught:

Rabbi Hiyya said:

One may kindle wood on the eve of Shabbat if it will suffice to burn during the day, before Shabbat,

until the wood is destroyed so as to

become fit for

a craftsman’s work.

That is, until most of its thickness is burned.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: So that the fire will seize it from both sides

during the day, before Shabbat. That is, most of its circumference.

And although there is no proof for the matter,

there is

an indication of the matter

that after the fire has seized it on both its sides, it continues burning and is not extinguished, as it is written:

“The fire has consumed its two ends, and its middle is charred—

will it succeed for work?” It follows that whenever the fire has seized it on both its sides, it is certain that it is dry inside.

.

And as for the fact that it is written at the end of the verse, “will it succeed for work?”—there it is speaking of a grapevine. But with other wood, it is not destroyed for work when the fire seizes its two ends, as is proven in our discussion. Tosafot.

It is written concerning Jehoiakim: “And the king was sitting in the winter house in the ninth month,

and

the

fire before him was burning.”

And we raise an objection concerning it:

What is “fire”?

Rav said: Willow wood [a willow branch].

And Shmuel said: Large pieces of wood

large

that were kindled with willow wood [by means of willow wood]. And they are called “fire” because they are kindled fraternally, with the small piece kindling the large one. But according to the plain meaning of the verse, it implies that it is the vessel upon which they kindle the fire. Rashi there.

.

And the Gemara proves from the language of people in accordance with Rav, that ahavona is willow wood:

There was one who said to them

to the people beside him:

Who wants

someone interested in

willow wood?

And afterward

it was found

that he had offered them

a willow branch.

Rav Huna said:

It is permitted to kindle

reeds

on the eve of Shabbat at twilight, and

they do not require

that the fire seize

most

of them during the day, before Shabbat, because they do not become extinguished; rather, they continue burning. Therefore, there is no concern lest he stoke them.

But if he

bundled them

the reeds together,

they require

that the fire seize

most

of them during the day, before Shabbat, so that it will be permitted to kindle them. Since a flame cannot enter between them, they are liable to become extinguished, and he will come to stoke them.

Date pits—if he made a fire from them once they became dry,

фиников: если из них сложили костёр после того, как они высохли,

they do not require

that the fire seize

most

of them, because it is not their manner to become extinguished.

But if he

placed them in baskets [vessels made from palm leaves] and placed the basket in the fire when it was full of pits,

they require

that the fire seize

most

of them. Otherwise, we are concerned that they will become extinguished after nightfall and he will kindle them, because they are gathered together and the flame does not enter between them.

Rav Hisdai objected

to Rav Huna:

On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable: Reeds,

which are not bundled, require most of them, because there is greater concern that they will become extinguished. This is because

they are scattered,

spread here and there, and the reed projecting outward will not find its fellow from which to ignite. But when he

bundled them,

there is not so much concern that they will become extinguished, for

they are not scattered,

and each one will ignite from its fellow. Therefore, it is not necessary that the fire seize most of them.

And likewise,

date pits

that are not gathered require most of them, because

they are scattered,

and they do not ignite one another. But when he

placed them in baskets,

they do not require most of them, because there is no concern that they will become extinguished, for

they are not scattered.