Shabbat 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

But

in the provinces

it is forbidden to do so, because we are concerned that he may complete its ignition on Shabbat. Rather, one may kindle a fire in wood only if there is sufficient time

for the flame to take hold of most of it

before Shabbat.

Rabbi Yehuda says: With coal

it is sufficient that the fire take hold of it

to any extent.

Even though there is not enough time for the fire to take hold of most of it, once the fire has taken hold of it to any extent, it is no longer necessary to stoke it, since coal does not ordinarily go out.

Gemara:

We learned in our Mishna: One may not roast meat, an onion, or an egg, unless they will be roasted sufficiently before nightfall.

We raised a question concerning this:

And how much

is the measure of roasting required for them to be considered roasted before nightfall?

Rabbi Elazar said that Rav said: Sufficient that they be roasted before nightfall to the degree of the food of ben Derosai.

Ben Derosai was a bandit who cooked his food to one-third of its cooking. Once they have been roasted to this measure before Shabbat, it is again permitted to leave them on the fire on Shabbat, since there is no longer concern that he may stoke the coals.

We bring a proof:

It was also stated: Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anything

cooked by a Jew

to the degree of the food of ben Derosai—

afterward

there is no

prohibition upon its completion of cooking by a gentile

on account of

the prohibition of

“food cooked by gentiles”.

This proves that after cooking to the degree of ben Derosai, it is already considered cooked. Here too, there is no need to decree against it on account of concern that he may stoke the coals.

It was taught in a beraita: Hananya says: Anything

cooked before Shabbat

to the degree of the food of ben Derosai—

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

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

the

stove is not

one whose coals have been raked out

of it,

and even

it is not

covered [with ash,

meaning that he did not scatter ash over the coals to lessen their heat], there is no concern that he may stoke the coals, since it is already considered cooked. This is the same as Rav’s statement: “Sufficient that they be roasted before nightfall to the degree of the food of ben Derosai.”

We learned in the Mishna:

One may not place bread.

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

They raised a dilemma:

The manner of baking loaves is to attach the dough to the walls of the oven all around. Therefore, there is a question as to which side of the loaf Rabbi Eliezer called

“lower.”

Is it

the

side of the loaf

that is

attached

to

the wall of the

oven,

and accordingly 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 the oven]. And accordingly Rabbi Eliezer comes to be lenient, since according to this interpretation the first tanna holds that all of its surfaces must crust before nightfall, including the side attached to the oven [Tosafot according to Rashi].

.

We resolve the dilemma:

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

before nightfall. These are what our Mishna calls “its lower surface.”

We learned in the Mishna:

One lowers the Paschal offering

into the oven just before nightfall.

We raised a question concerning this:

What is the reason

that it is permitted to do so? But it was taught in the first clause: One may not roast “unless they will be roasted sufficiently before nightfall.”

And we answer:

Because the members of the group

bringing the Paschal offering

are vigilant.

We do not fear that they will come to stoke the coals.

We challenge this:

If it were not so,

that they are vigilant,

would they not

have permitted them to do so?

But the Master said:

With regard to

kid meat—

whether

it is

sealed

[with dough] at the mouth of the oven,

or whether

it is

not sealed, it is well permitted

to leave it there on Shabbat, even if it has not reached the degree of the food of ben Derosai. Since air harms it, we do not fear that he will uncover the mouth of the oven and stoke the coals. The Paschal offering, moreover, comes from a lamb in its first year, and in any event there is no reason for concern regarding it. Why, then, is the reason “they are vigilant” necessary? And we answer:

There,

where we permitted kid meat, the discussion is of kid meat

cut into pieces,

and therefore air harms it.

But

here,

with regard to the Paschal offering,

it is not cut into pieces

but is roasted whole, as it is written: “with its head and with its innards.” If he uncovers the mouth of the oven, the air will not spoil it. Therefore, we are concerned that he may stoke the coals, were it not for the fact that they are vigilant.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one kindles the fire

in the wood chamber.

We raised a question concerning this:

From where are these matters derived,

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

Rav Huna said:

It is written:

“You shall not kindle a fire in any of your dwelling places

on the day of Shabbat.” And we infer:

“In any of your dwelling places”

specifically

you may not kindle; but you may kindle in the fire of the wood chamber,

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

Rav Ashi raised an objection to this: If so,

since even the fire in the wood chamber, which is not part of the sacrificial service, was excluded by the phrase “your dwelling places,”

even on Shabbat

itself

as well

it should be permitted to kindle a fire in the wood chamber. Yet our Mishna teaches only that, because of a rabbinic decree, we do not fear this in the Temple on the eve of Shabbat.

Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: The verse

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

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

of the sacrifices of the eve of Shabbat;

that is what it came

to teach: They may be offered throughout the entire night, even on Shabbat. But the fire of the wood chamber certainly does not override Shabbat, since it is not a need of Heaven but a need of the priests. The reason they did not decree against it when kindling it just before nightfall on the eve of Shabbat is that

the priests are vigilant,

and they are all learned and God-fearing. They remember the prohibition against kindling on Shabbat and will not come to stoke the coals once it grows dark.

We learned in the Mishna:

And in the provinces

one may not kindle a fire just before nightfall, except

so that the fire will take hold

of most of it before nightfall.

We raised a question concerning this:

What does “most of it”

of the wood mean?

Rav said:

That the fire must take hold of

most

of

each and every one

of the pieces of wood; it is not sufficient for the fire to take hold of most of the number of pieces of wood. Rather, if there is even one piece of wood in which the fire has not taken hold of most of it, we fear that he will come to complete its ignition after nightfall.

And Shmuel said:

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

that

one will no longer say,

“Bring thin wood

and

place it beneath them”

in order to ignite them, it is considered in their case that the fire has taken hold of most of it. It is permitted to kindle them even if the fire has not taken hold of each and every piece of wood.

Rav Ḥiyya taught a beraita in support of Shmuel:

It is written concerning the lighting of the lamps of the Menora: “To raise up a continual lamp.” And we expound that the mitzva of lighting is fulfilled when it reaches the point

that the flame rises by itself, and not that the flame

of the Menora

rises through another agency.

It follows that lighting is considered to have been performed in such a manner. And where Scripture was particular that it not go out, as with the Menora, it is sufficient that the flame rise by itself; it is not necessary that the wick be burning through most of it. The same applies here with regard to a fire [Rashi in one interpretation, and Tosafot. Rashi also cited those who taught this with regard to kindling a fire on the eve of Shabbat. That is precisely the law of the Mishna, and follows Shmuel].

We raised a question concerning this:

A single piece of wood,

how may one kindle it on the eve of Shabbat?

Rav said:

Once the fire has entered into the wood, until

most of its thickness has burned.

And some say:

Once the fire has taken hold of

most of its circumference

on the outside of the wood. Even though the fire has not taken hold of most of it on the inside, it is permitted. Conversely, if the fire has taken hold of most of it on the inside but not of most of its circumference, it is forbidden.

Rav Pappa said:

Since it is a dispute,

therefore

we follow the stringent position, 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 dependent upon the dispute between the

tannaim.

For it was taught in a beraita:

Rabbi Ḥiyya said:

One may kindle wood on the eve of Shabbat if it will burn before nightfall

until the wood is destroyed to the point of

being fit for

the work of a craftsman.

That is, until most of its thickness has burned.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Sufficient that the fire take hold from both sides

before nightfall. That is, most of its circumference.

And although there is no proof for the matter,

there is

an indication of the matter

that once the fire has taken hold on both sides, it continues to burn and does not go out, as it is written:

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

—will it succeed for craftsmanship!?”

For whenever the fire has taken hold on both sides, it is evident that it is dry inside.

[As for the fact that the latter part of the verse says, “Will it succeed for craftsmanship?”—that passage is speaking of grapevine wood. But with regard to other wood, it is not rendered unfit for craftsmanship merely because the fire has taken hold at both ends, as is demonstrated in our discussion. Tosafot.]

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

and

the

hearth before him was burning.”

We raised a question concerning this:

What is an “ach”?

Rav said: It is achvana [a willow branch].

And Shmuel said: It is large pieces of wood

large

that were ignited by achvana [through willow]. They are called “ach” because they are ignited fraternally, with the smaller piece igniting the larger one. According to the plain meaning of the verse, it seems that it refers to the implement upon which the fire is kindled. Rashi there].

.

The Gemara proves from people’s usage, in accordance with Rav, that “achvana” is a willow branch:

There was one who said to them

to the people beside him:

“Who wants

some

achvana?”

And afterward

it was found

that what he had offered them was

a willow branch.

Rav Huna said:

It is permitted to kindle

reeds on the eve of Shabbat just before nightfall, and

they

do not need

the flame to take hold of

most

of them before nightfall, because they do not go out; rather, they continue burning. Therefore, there is no concern that he may stoke them.

But if he

bundled

the reeds together,

they

need the fire to take hold of

most

of them before nightfall in order for it to be permitted to kindle them. Since the flame cannot enter between them, they are liable to go out, and he may come to stoke them.

Date pits—if one made a fire of them once they had dried,

they do not need

the fire to take hold of

most

of them, because they do not ordinarily go out.

But if he

placed them in baskets [containers made of lulav leaves] and placed the basket, filled with pits, inside the fire,

they need

the fire to take hold of

most

of them. Otherwise, we fear that they will go out after nightfall and he will kindle them, since they are gathered together and the flame cannot enter between them.

Rav Ḥisda raised an objection

to Rav Huna:

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

which are not bundled, need most of them to have caught fire, since there is greater cause for concern that they will go out. This is because

they are scattered,

spread in different directions, and a reed protruding outward will not find another reed from which to ignite. But when he

bundles them, there is less concern that they will go out, since

they are not scattered

among themselves,

and each one will ignite from the other. Therefore, it is not necessary for the fire to take hold of most of them.

And likewise,

date pits

that are not gathered together need most of them to have caught fire, because

they are scattered

and do not ignite one another. But when he

places them in baskets,

they do not require most of them to have caught fire, because there is no concern that they will go out, since

they are not scattered.