Shabbat 24b — the Talmud in English

And we conclude:

The halakha is not in accordance with all these teachings!

Not in accordance with Rav Huna and Rav Judah, who said that one does not mention Hanukkah in the additional prayers.

And not in accordance with Rav Giddel, who said that one who reads the concluding portion of the Prophets on Shabbat that is the New Moon does not mention the New Moon.

And not in accordance with Rav Aḥadvoi, who said that when a festival occurs on Shabbat, it is not necessary to mention the festival in the reading of the Prophets of the afternoon prayer.

Rather,

the halakha is

as Rav Joshua ben Levi said:

Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat—

one who prays

the prayer of

Ne’ila must mention Shabbat,

and he says: “And You granted us this day of rest and this day of Yom Kippur,” and he concludes his blessing: “Who sanctifies Shabbat and Yom Kippur.”

And what is the reason that he mentions Shabbat?

Because

it is a day on which one is obligated to pray four prayers [apart from the night prayer]. And since it is the obligation of the day, he must mention Shabbat in it as well.

And we raise an objection:

The halakha contradicts the halakha:

You said that the halakha is like Rabbi Joshua ben Levi

who mentions the day of Shabbat in Ne’ila.

But,

on the other hand,

we hold

that the halakha is like Rava.

For Rava said: When a festival occurs on Shabbat, the prayer leader who goes down before the ark

in the prayer of

evening

and prays “a semblance of seven” [“Shield of the Fathers”]—

is not required to mention

its matter

of the festival.

And the reason:

because

if not for

the day of

Shabbat, a prayer leader would not go down

before the ark in the prayer of

the evening on a festival [since the prayer “Shield of the Fathers” is said only on Shabbat].

And since we hold like Rava in this matter, it follows that one follows only the day that “obligates” the prayer; likewise, on Yom Kippur, when he prays the prayer of Ne’ila [whose obligation is because of Yom Kippur], he should not mention Shabbat in it. Yet you said that the halakha is like Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, who mentions the day of Shabbat in Ne’ila. And the halakha contradicts the halakha!?

And we reject this:

Can it really be compared!?

There,

in the repetition by the prayer leader of the evening prayer of Shabbat,

it is the law that even on Shabbat he likewise need not,

because the repetition by the prayer leader was not instituted for the evening prayer.

And

only

the Sages instituted

the saying of the prayer “Shield of the Fathers”

because of danger.

Since their synagogues were not within the city, and on weekdays they were occupied with their work and prayed the evening prayer in their homes, while only on Shabbat nights did they come to the synagogue. And the Sages were concerned lest those who came late finish their prayer after the congregation had finished, and remain alone in the synagogue; therefore they lengthened the congregation’s prayer. And since the reason for the repetition by the prayer leader in the evening is because of danger [and is not on account of the obligation of the day], they do not add the matter of the festival to it.

But here,

in the prayer of Ne’ila,

—

it is a day on which one is obligated to pray four prayers.

And since it is the obligation of the day, he mentions Shabbat in it as well.

We learned in the Mishna:

And not with tail fat,

and not with suet, and so on; and the Sages say: Whether boiled [suet] or unboiled, one may not kindle with it.

And we inquire concerning it:

The Sages,

who said in the Mishna that one may kindle neither with boiled suet nor with unboiled suet—

are they the first tannaitic authority

who said that one may not kindle with suet, and all suet is included?

And we explain:

There is a difference between them

in this matter

that

Rav Baruna said in the name of Rav [above, 21a]: if one mixed oil that is fit for kindling with oils with which kindling is forbidden, it is permitted to kindle with them.

And in this the first tannaitic authority and the Sages disagree: whether kindling with suet is permitted when one adds oil to it.

And they are not specified,

and it was not explained which of them forbade and which permitted.

Mishna:

One may not kindle with oil of burning,

the oil of teruma that became impure, which is destined to be burned,

on a festival

that occurs on the eve of Shabbat [as was explained in the Gemara above, 23b].

Rabbi Ishmael says: One may not kindle with tar,

the refuse of pitch,

because of the honor of Shabbat,

for its smell is bad.

And the Sages permit

kindling

with all oils.

That is:

with sesame oil, with nut oil, with radish oil, with fish oil,

made from the innards of fish that were melted.

With bottle-gourd oil [the oil of the wild gourd], and they also kindle

with tar and with naphtha,

a type of oil whose smell is bad.

Rabbi Tarfon says: One may kindle only with olive oil.

Gemara:

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the reason

that one may not kindle with oil of burning on a festival?

And we explain:

Because one does not burn sacred items on a festival .

And further we inquire concerning it:

From where are these matters

that one does not burn sacred items on a festival, and why should the positive commandment “You shall burn it with fire” [that it is a mitzva to burn sacred items that became impure] not override the negative commandment “You shall do no manner of labor”?

And we explain:

Hezekiah said, and likewise the tannai of the school of Hezekiah taught: The verse says, “You shall not leave any of it

[of the flesh of the Passover sacrifice]

until morning.

And what is left of it until morning

—“you shall burn it with fire.”

It was not necessary for the verse to state

at the end of the verse

“until morning,”

and it would have been sufficient for us had it been written: “And what is left of it you shall burn with fire.”

What does the verse come to teach by stating “until morning”?

The verse came to assign it,

the remnant, whose law is burning,

a second morning for its burning.

For it is not burned on the morning of the festival, but on the following day, on the intermediate day of the festival.

From this, that one does not burn sacred items on a festival.

Abaye said:

We derive it from here, for

the verse says, “The burnt offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat.”

Only the burnt offering of Shabbat, which is the obligation of the day, is offered on Shabbat. And this comes to exclude:

and not a weekday burnt offering,

such as the limbs of the daily offering of the eve of a festival that were not burned during the day, for one does not burn them

on a festival.

Rava said:

We derive it from here:

The verse says

“Only that which may be eaten by every person

it alone shall be done for you.”

The words “it alone” are superfluous, and it should have said: “Only that which may be eaten by every person shall be done for you.”

And from this we derive:

“It,”

specifically food for a person is permitted to be prepared on a festival,

but not preparations.

For preparations for food for a person [that can be done on the eve of the festival], such as preparing the knife and the spit, are not permitted on a festival.

“Alone”

comes to exclude:

and not circumcision

that is performed

not in its proper time,

which does not override Shabbat .

For

if the verse had not excluded it, it would

have been derived by a kal va-chomer: as we say below [132b]: If the mitzva of circumcision, which overrides the prohibition against cutting off a leprous mark [both when the circumcision is in its proper time and when it is not in its proper time], for it is a mitzva to circumcise even if there is a leprous mark at the place of the circumcision, despite the fact that the prohibition against cutting off a leprous mark is so severe that the Temple service is postponed because of this prohibition [when the priests are impure with leprosy, the service is postponed]—Shabbat, which is postponed because of the Temple service, all the more so should it be postponed for circumcision, even when it is not in its proper time.

For this reason the verse comes, “alone,” to teach us that circumcision not performed in its proper time does not override Shabbat.

Rav Ashi said:

We derive it from another verse.

можно было бы разрешить его. Как мы скажем далее [132б]: обрезание отодвигает запрет срезать поражение кожи [как при обрезании в установленный срок, так и при обрезании не в установленный срок]. То есть заповедано совершить обрезание, даже если поражение находится на месте обрезания, несмотря на то что запрет срезать поражение настолько строг, что служение в Храме отодвигается из-за этого запрета [если коэны осквернены поражением цараат, служение откладывается]. А Шабат отодвигается ради служения; тем более он должен отодвигаться ради обрезания, даже если оно совершается не в установленный срок.

Именно для этого Писание говорит «только»: чтобы научить нас, что обрезание не в установленный срок не отодвигает Шабат.

Рав Аши сказал:

мы выводим это из другого стиха.