Shabbat 42a (מב.) — the Talmud in English

And we raised this in the course of the discussion:

Does this mean:

Do you wish to say

that Shmuel—

who permitted even the measure that effects tempering, since he does not intend it—

holds like Rabbi Shimon,

who says that an unintended act is permitted?

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

The Gemara therefore expressed astonishment:

But Shmuel said: One may extinguish

on Shabbat

an ember of metal

that is found

in the public domain, so that the public will not be injured by it, but not an ember of wood.

The permission to extinguish an ember of metal is because, by Torah law, the obligation for the labor of extinguishing applies only

when one extinguishes a fire burning in wood in order that the fire not consume the wood completely, leaving behind charcoal. But when one extinguishes a fire without the purpose of producing charcoal, this is not the labor of extinguishing. Nevertheless, the Sages prohibited extinguishing even where the extinguishing is not for the purpose of producing charcoal, except in the case of an ember of metal found in the public domain, which the Sages permitted one to extinguish ab initio, so that the public would not be injured by it.

But they did not permit extinguishing an ember of wood found in the public domain, even though one is not extinguishing it for the sake of the charcoal, since when an ember of wood is extinguished, charcoal is produced; this is therefore a labor not needed for its own purpose, and it is prohibited by Torah law.

And if it enters your mind that he holds

—Shmuel—

like Rabbi Shimon

with regard to an unintended act, it is reasonable that with regard to a labor not needed for its own purpose as well, he holds that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon. If so,

even

an ember

of wood, too,

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

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

with regard to an unintended act, he holds

like Rabbi Shimon,

who permits it. But

with regard to a labor not needed for its own purpose, he holds

—Shmuel—

like Rabbi Yehuda,

who prohibits it by Torah law.

Ravina said:

Since they permitted a rabbinic prohibition in a place where the public is in danger of injury,

therefore, a thorn

that is found

in the public domain

and injures the public,

one carries it less than four cubits at a time

in the public domain. Although it is prohibited by rabbinic law to carry in increments of less than four cubits, the Sages permitted it in a place of danger.

And in a karmelit,

it is permitted to carry 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.

[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 meicham or into a 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.

But 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 one may not place cold water even into a second vessel, because the Sages decreed that one might come to place cold water into a first vessel,

the statement of Beit Shammai.

Here too, Rashi explains that it is prohibited to place cold water into hot water in a first vessel because the lower substance prevails. It must be considered whether this principle teaches that it is prohibited to place even a large quantity of cold water into hot water, because the water below cooks at least the first water that falls into it, or perhaps it is prohibited to place only a small quantity of cold water into hot water, whereas a large quantity is permitted. And it was taught in the Mishna [41a] that it is permitted to place a large quantity of cold water into a meicham. According to Abaye [41b], this refers to a meicham containing water. This proves the second possibility: A small quantity of cold water placed into hot water is prohibited, whereas a large quantity is permitted. Nevertheless, it still must be considered whether hot water from a first vessel may be poured into cold water only when the hot water is a small quantity, or even when it is a large quantity [as discussed in the previous note]. From the words of the Beit Yosef and the Bach [318], it is evident that they understood Rashi [and the Tur] to distinguish between pouring cold water into hot water and pouring hot water into cold water. When a large quantity of cold water is poured into hot water, it is impossible to say that the lower substance will cause all the cold water to cook; therefore, it is permitted to pour a large quantity of cold water into a small quantity of hot water. But when a large quantity of hot water is poured into cold water, the lower substance has the power to overcome the hot water and prevent it from cooking, because preventing cooking is easier than causing cooking. Accordingly, when cold water is poured into hot water, only a large quantity of cold water is permitted, whereas a small quantity is prohibited; but when hot water is poured into cold water, both a small and a large quantity of hot water are permitted. The Beit Yosef [and so it is stated in the Kesef Mishne 22:5] wrote that according to Maimonides, it is always prohibited to pour cold water into hot water in a first vessel, even when the cold water is present in a large quantity. The case permitted by the Mishna in the meicham refers to a meicham from which the water had been poured out, in accordance with Rav Adda bar Mattana, and not to Abaye’s interpretation that water remains in it. This is how Tosafot and the Rashba explain the matter. Seemingly, Rashi’s view must also be explained as follows: Beit Shammai prohibited placing cold water into a second vessel as a preventive measure due to a first vessel, but it is not possible to say that the reason in a second vessel is that the lower substance prevails, since a second vessel does not cook. And according to what was explained above—that the prohibition in a first vessel applies only when a small quantity of cold water is placed into hot water—it follows by kal va-chomer that in a second vessel Beit Shammai prohibited only placing a small quantity of cold water into hot water, whereas placing a large quantity of cold water into hot water is permitted, since it is no worse than a first vessel. With regard to hot water from a second vessel poured into cold water, it was explained above that according to Rashi and the Rashba, even in a first vessel it is permitted to place a large quantity of hot water into a small quantity of cold water [either because the lower substance prevails or because the hot water cannot cook it]. If so, it is certainly permitted in a second vessel. But according to Tosafot, in a first vessel it is prohibited to place a large quantity of hot water into cold water; only a small quantity of hot water may be placed into cold water. Accordingly, it must be said that Beit Shammai also decreed, with regard to hot water from a second vessel poured into cold water, that a large quantity of hot water may not be placed into cold water, but only a small quantity of hot water may be placed into cold water. It follows that, according to Tosafot, Beit Shammai issued two decrees in a second vessel as a preventive measure due to a first vessel: (a) not to place a small quantity of cold water into a large quantity of hot water; and (b) not to place a large quantity of hot water into a small quantity of cold water.

And Beit Hillel say:

A second vessel does not cook, and they did not decree concerning a second vessel as a preventive measure due to 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 is this statement said?

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

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 they did not decree concerning it as a preventive measure due to a first vessel; all the more so, it is permitted to place hot water into cold water.

But in a bathtub,

which is a first vessel, it is permitted to pour only

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

Placing hot water into cold water is permitted, since it is permitted even in a first vessel, and according to Rashi, even a large quantity of hot water may be placed into cold water, as explained above. [According to Tosafot, in a bathtub one may place a small quantity of hot water into a large quantity of cold water, but a large quantity of hot water is prohibited, as in every first vessel according to their view.] As for placing cold water into hot water, if the cold water is present in a large quantity, it is obvious that this is permitted, since it is permitted even in a first vessel to place a large quantity of cold water into hot water. Accordingly, it must be said that the novel point of Beit Hillel is that in a second vessel it is permitted to place a small quantity of cold water into a large quantity of hot water. Rashi offers two reasons for this: (a) The cup is a second vessel, which does not cook, and they did not decree concerning a second vessel as a preventive measure due to a first vessel; (b) the cup is intended for drinking. His words imply that something intended for drinking is not so hot and cannot cook. Accordingly, it is possible that the permission to place a large quantity of cold water into a meicham, which is a first vessel, is because it is intended for drinking and is not so hot; but when the vessel is intended for bathing, even a large quantity of cold water may not be placed into hot water. Why did Beit Hillel prohibit placing cold water into a bathtub? (a) Rashi’s words imply that a bathtub is a first vessel [and this is what the Magen Shlomo inferred from his words; see also the Penei Yehoshua]. Just as one may not place a small quantity of cold water into a meicham, so too, since a bathtub is a first vessel, one may not place a small quantity of cold water into it. But a large quantity is permitted, as in a meicham. However, clarification is needed as to why Beit Hillel specifically mentioned a “bathtub” [whereas Tosafot raised the opposite difficulty: Why did the earlier Mishna state the law with regard to a meicham and not a bathtub?]. It is implied by the early authorities in this passage, and likewise by Rashi with regard to a basin, that a vessel intended for bathing is more stringent than one intended for drinking. It is possible that Beit Hillel introduced a greater novelty with regard to a bathtub than with regard to a meicham: In a meicham, it is permitted to place a large quantity of cold water into hot water, whereas in a bathtub it is prohibited to place even a large quantity of cold water, since it is extremely hot. (b) Tosafot maintained that a bathtub is a second vessel, and the Sages decreed that one may not place cold water into it because an observer might think that the bathtub is a first vessel, due to its great heat. According to them, Beit Hillel agrees with Beit Shammai that in the case of a bathtub there is reason to issue a decree as a preventive measure due to a first vessel. It must be said that the prohibition applies only to placing a small quantity of cold water into a large quantity of hot water, since a large quantity of cold water may be placed even into a first vessel, as we find with regard to a meicham. [It is not plausible that a bathtub, which is a second vessel intended for bathing, should be more stringent than a meicham, which is a first vessel intended for drinking.] (c) The Rashba maintained that a bathtub is a second vessel, and that it is prohibited to place even a large quantity of cold water into it, because the cold water will never merely become warm; rather, it will cook, since the bathtub is heated excessively. Accordingly, the law of a bathtub, which is a second vessel, is more stringent than that of a meicham. (d) The Ran wrote that a bathtub is a first vessel, but that it is more stringent than a meicham: In a meicham, it is permitted to add a large quantity of water in order to warm it, whereas in a bathtub the Sages decreed that one may not warm water in it.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits

in a bathtub 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

with regard to the law of a bathtub.

что דין