Shabbat 42a — the Talmud in English

We considered this:

Does this mean

that you wish to say

that Shmuel,

who permitted even an amount that causes the metal to harden, since he does not intend for that to happen,

holds like Rabbi Shimon,

who says that an unintended act is permitted?

And the Gemara understood that just as Shmuel ruled in the case of an unintended act like Rabbi Shimon, so too he ruled in accordance with him regarding a labor that is not needed for its own purpose. Rabbi Shimon permits such labor by Torah law, while Rabbi Yehuda prohibits it.

Therefore, the Gemara was puzzled:

But Shmuel said: One may extinguish

on Shabbat

a metal coal

that is found

in the public domain, so that the public will not be injured by it, but not a wooden coal.

The permission to extinguish a metal coal is because, by Torah law, there is no liability for the labor of extinguishing unless

one extinguishes a fire burning in wood in order to prevent the fire from completely consuming the wood, leaving charcoal behind. But when one extinguishes a fire without intending to make charcoal, this is not the labor of extinguishing. Nevertheless, the Sages prohibited extinguishing even when the extinguishing is not for the purpose of making charcoal, except in the case of a metal coal found in the public domain. There, the Sages permitted one to extinguish it initially, so that the public would not be injured by it.

But they did not permit extinguishing a wooden coal found in the public domain, even though one is not extinguishing it for the sake of the charcoal, since extinguishing a wooden coal produces charcoal. This is therefore a labor that is not needed for its own purpose, and it is prohibited by Torah law.

And if it could enter your mind that he held

that Shmuel

held like Rabbi Shimon

regarding an unintended act, it would be reasonable that regarding a labor that is not needed for its own purpose he likewise holds that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon. If so,

even

a

wooden coal, too,

should be permitted to extinguish it so that the public would not be injured by it, since this is a labor that is not needed for its own purpose: he is not extinguishing it for the purpose of making charcoal. According to Rabbi Shimon, one is not liable for it by Torah law, and in order to prevent injury to the public it is permitted to extinguish it.

The Gemara answers that a distinction must be made between the two matters. Indeed,

regarding an unintended act, he holds

like Rabbi Shimon,

who permits it. But

regarding a labor that is not needed for its own purpose,

Shmuel

holds like Rabbi Yehuda,

who prohibits it by Torah law.

Ravina said:

Since the Sages permitted a rabbinic prohibition in a place where the public may be injured,

therefore, a thorn

that is found

in the public domain

and injures the public,

one moves it less than four cubits at a time

within the public domain. Although moving an object less than four cubits at a time is prohibited by rabbinic law, the Sages permitted it in a place where there is danger of injury.

And in a karmelit,

it is permitted to move the thorn

even a great distance

[more than four cubits at once], since carrying an object four cubits in a karmelit is prohibited only by rabbinic law.

We learned in the Mishna:

But one may place

cold water into the boiler or into the cup in order to warm it:

The Sages taught: A person may place

water

hot

from a first vessel, which cooks,

into cold water

on Shabbat.

And he may not

place

the cold water into

the vessel containing

the hot water,

because a first vessel cooks the water that enters it. And he may not place cold water even into a second vessel, because the Sages decreed that one might otherwise come to place cold water into a first vessel,

the statement of Beit Shammai.

And Beit Hillel say:

A second vessel does not cook, and the Sages did not decree concerning a second vessel as a precaution because of a first vessel. Therefore,

whether hot water is placed into cold water, or cold water is placed into

hot water, it is permitted.

In what case do these words apply?

When did Beit Hillel permit placing even cold water into hot water? Only

in a cup,

which is a second vessel and is also intended for drinking. Therefore, it is permitted to place cold water into it, and the Sages did not decree concerning it as a precaution because of a first vessel; all the more so, it is permitted to place hot water into cold water.

But in a bath,

which is a first vessel, one may pour only

hot water into cold water, but not cold water into hot water.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits

in a bath both placing hot water into cold water and placing cold water into hot water.

Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya

regarding the law of a bath.

Rav Yosef was inclined to say,

that the law of

a basin

with which one bathes

is like that of a bathhouse,

for although it is a secondary vessel, since it is heated for bathing, its law is stringent like that of a bathhouse: for according to Beit Hillel it is forbidden to put cold [water] into hot [water], and according to Rabbi Shimon even hot [water] into cold [water].

Abaye said to him: Rabbi Hiyya taught, “A basin is not like a bathhouse,”

but it is an entirely ordinary secondary vessel.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

And according to what initially entered the mind,

that Rav Yosef held

that a basin is like a bathhouse, and Rav Nahman said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya,

who says that in a bathhouse it is forbidden to put hot [water] into cold [water] and cold [water] into hot [water], if so,

but on Shabbat there is no bathing in hot [water,]

for it is never possible to pour the water, neither hot [water] into cold [water] nor cold [water] into hot [water].

And the Gemara answers:

Do you think

that when we learned above,

“Rabbi Shimon

ben Menasya forbids,”

it refers to the latter clause,

to the bathhouse discussed in the latter clause, where Beit Hillel forbade putting cold [water] into hot [water] in a bathhouse, and Rabbi Shimon added that hot [water] into cold [water] is also permitted? That is not so; rather, Rabbi Shimon

refers to the first clause,

the law of a cup, which is a secondary vessel, and thus the beraita is to be understood:

Beit Shammai say: In a secondary vessel it is permitted to put hot [water] into cold [water], but not cold [water] into hot [water],

and Beit Hillel permit both hot [water] into cold [water] and cold [water] into hot [water], while Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya forbids cold [water] into hot [water].

The Gemara is astonished:

Shall we say that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya,

who forbade putting cold [water] into hot [water] in a secondary vessel,

held like Beit Shammai,

for they too forbade putting hot [water] into cold [water] in a secondary vessel?

And the Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya

is saying this:

Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about this matter.

Rather, Beit Hillel too hold that it is forbidden to put cold [water] into the hot [water] found in a cup, for we decree secondary vessel on account of primary vessel.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: I saw Rava, and he was not particular about the vessel,

whether putting cold water into hot [water] or hot [water] into cold [water], even in a basin made for bathing.

And Rava’s source is

from what Rabbi Hiyya taught

in a beraita:

A person may put a pitcher

a small vessel

of water into a basin of water,

in such a manner that he immerses the pitcher itself in the water in the basin,

whether

there was water inside the pitcher

hot,

and he inserts it

into

a basin containing

cold [water], or

a pitcher containing

cold [water],

and he inserts it

into

a basin of

hot [water].

Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi:

How did Rava prove from Rabbi Hiyya’s beraita that it is permitted to put cold [water] into hot [water] in a basin?

Perhaps there it is different,

in the beraita, for he does not mix the cold [water] with the hot [water], but rather

the vessel separates [them],

for the cold water is placed inside the pitcher, and he inserts the pitcher with the water into the hot [water]; this is what Rabbi Hiyya permitted. But when one mixes water with water, and the cold [water] is heated by the hot [water], perhaps Rabbi Hiyya did not permit this in a basin, for they decreed secondary vessel on account of primary vessel.

He said to him,

Rav Ashi to Rav Huna:

“Pouring” was stated,

we find an explicit beraita that Rabbi Hiyya permitted not only inserting a pitcher of cold [water] into hot water, but also pouring cold [water] into hot water, as it was taught:

A person may pour a pitcher of water into a basin of water, whether hot [water] into cold [water] or cold [water] into hot [water].

Mishna:

The pan and the pot that they removed

from the fire during twilight, when they were

boiling, one may not put into them

after nightfall

spices.

Since they are a primary vessel, and as long as it is boiling it cooks.