שבת יט

שבת יט

כּוּתָּח הַבַּבְלִי וְכׇל מִינֵי כּוּתָּח אָסוּר לִמְכּוֹר שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם קוֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח.

With regard to Babylonian kutaḥ, a spice that contains leavened bread crumbs, and all kinds of kutaḥ, it is prohibited to sell it to a gentile thirty days before Passover. Because kutaḥ is used exclusively as a spice, it lasts longer than other foods.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נוֹתְנִין מְזוֹנוֹת לִפְנֵי הַכֶּלֶב בֶּחָצֵר. נְטָלוֹ וְיָצָא — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ.

The Sages taught in a different baraita: One may, ab initio, put food before the dog in the courtyard on Shabbat, and we are not concerned that the dog may lift it and carry it out to the public domain. If the dog lifted it and exited the courtyard, one need not attend to him, as he is not required to ensure that the dog will eat it specifically in that courtyard.

כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ: נוֹתְנִין מְזוֹנוֹת לִפְנֵי הַגּוֹי בֶּחָצֵר. נְטָלוֹ וְיָצָא — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי, הַיְינוּ הָךְ. מַהוּ דְתֵימָא: הַאי רְמֵי עֲלֵיהּ, וְהַאי לָא רְמֵי עֲלֵיהּ — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

On a similar note, the baraita continued: One may place food before the gentile in the courtyard on Shabbat. If the gentile lifted it and exited, one need not attend to him. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this as well? This case is the same as that case. The halakhot with regard to the dog and the gentile are identical, as Shabbat prohibitions do not apply to either of them. The Gemara answers: There is a distinction. Lest you say that in this case, the case of the dog, responsibility for its food is incumbent upon the owner of the courtyard who owns the dog. And in this case, the case of the gentile, responsibility for his food is not incumbent upon the owner of the courtyard. Therefore, in a situation where there is concern that Shabbat will be desecrated, there is room to say that one may not give the gentile his food. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that in that case, it is also permitted.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יַשְׂכִּיר אָדָם כֵּלָיו לְגוֹי בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, בִּרְבִיעִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי מוּתָּר. כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ, אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין אִיגְּרוֹת בְּיַד גּוֹי בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, בִּרְבִיעִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי — מוּתָּר. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ עַל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הֶחָסִיד, שֶׁלֹּא נִמְצָא כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּיַד גּוֹי מֵעוֹלָם.

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: A person may not rent his utensils to a gentile on Shabbat eve, as it appears that the Jew is receiving payment for work performed on Shabbat. However, on the fourth and on the fifth days of the week it is permitted. On a similar note, one may not send letters in the hand of a gentile on Shabbat eve. However, on the fourth and on the fifth days of the week it is permitted. Nevertheless, they said about Rabbi Yosei the priest, and some say that they said this about Rabbi Yosei the Ḥasid, that a document in his handwriting was never found in the hand of a gentile, so that a gentile would not carry his letter on Shabbat.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין אִיגֶּרֶת בְּיַד גּוֹי עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קוֹצֵץ לוֹ דָּמִים. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְבֵיתוֹ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לַבַּיִת הַסָּמוּךְ לַחוֹמָה.

The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not send a letter in the hand of a gentile on Shabbat eve unless he stipulates a set sum of money for him. In that case, anything the gentile does with this letter is not in service of the Jew, but rather on his own, since his payment is stipulated in advance. Beit Shammai say: One may only give a letter to a gentile on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for the gentile to reach his house before dark. And Beit Hillel say: If there is sufficient time for him to reach the house adjacent to the wall of the city to which he was sent.

וַהֲלֹא קָצַץ? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְאִם לֹא קָצַץ — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְבֵיתוֹ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לַבַּיִת הַסָּמוּךְ לַחוֹמָה.

The Gemara asks: Didn’t he stipulate a set price? What difference does it make whether he reaches the city on Shabbat eve or on Shabbat? Rav Sheshet said, the baraita is saying as follows: And if he did not stipulate a set price for the task, Beit Shammai say: One may only give a letter to a gentile on Shabbat eve if there is sufficient time for the gentile to reach his house before dark. And Beit Hillel say: If there is sufficient time for him to reach the house adjacent to the wall of the city to which he was sent.

וְהָאָמְרַתְּ רֵישָׁא אֵין מְשַׁלְּחִין? לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּקְבִיעַ בֵּי דַוָּאר בְּמָתָא, וְהָא דְּלָא קְבִיעַ בֵּי דַוָּאר בְּמָתָא.

The Gemara asks: Didn’t you say in the first clause of the baraita, that one may not send a letter unless he stipulated a set price? Without stipulating a set price, one may not send a letter at all. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is possible to explain that this, where we learned that one is permitted to give a letter to a gentile on Shabbat eve even if he did not stipulate a set price, is in a case where the house of the mail carrier [bei doar] is permanently located in the city. And this, where it is permitted to give a letter to a gentile only if he stipulated a set price, is in a case where the house of the mail carrier is not permanently located in the city.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מַפְלִיגִין בִּסְפִינָה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים קוֹדֶם לַשַּׁבָּת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת, אֲבָל לִדְבַר מִצְוָה — שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי. וּפוֹסֵק עִמּוֹ עַל מְנָת לִשְׁבּוֹת, וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹבֵת — דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. וּמִצּוֹר לְצִידֹן — אֲפִילּוּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת מוּתָּר.

The Sages taught: One may not set sail on a ship fewer than three days before Shabbat, to avoid appearances that the Jew is performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat. In what case is this statement said? In a case where he set sail for a voluntary matter; however, if he sailed for a matter involving a mitzva, he may well do so. And, even then, he must stipulate with the gentile ship captain that this is on the condition that he rests, i.e., stops the ship, and even if the gentile does not rest. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He need not stipulate. And sailing on a ship that is traveling from Tyre to Sidon, a short journey by sea, is permitted even on Shabbat eve.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין צָרִין עַל עֲיָירוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים קוֹדֶם לַשַּׁבָּת. וְאִם הִתְחִילוּ — אֵין מַפְסִיקִין. וְכֵן הָיָה שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר: ״עַד רִדְתָּהּ״, אֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת.

The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One may not lay siege to cities of gentiles fewer than three days before Shabbat, to avoid the need to desecrate Shabbat in establishing the siege. And if they already began establishing the siege fewer than three days before Shabbat, they need not stop all war-related actions even on Shabbat. And so Shammai would say: From that which is written: “And you should build a siege against the city that is waging war with you until it falls” (Deuteronomy 20:20), it is derived that the siege should be sustained “until it falls.” Consequently, the siege must continue even on Shabbat.

אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: נוֹהֲגִין הָיוּ וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי צָדוֹק: כָּךְ הָיָה מִנְהָגוֹ שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שֶׁהָיוּ נוֹתְנִין כְּלֵי לָבָן לְכוֹבֵס שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים קוֹדֶם לַשַּׁבָּת, וּצְבוּעִים אֲפִילּוּ בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת. וּמִדִּבְרֵיהֶם לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁהַלְּבָנִים קָשִׁים לְכַבְּסָן יוֹתֵר מִן הַצְּבוּעִין.

We learned in the mishna that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: The ancestral house of my father, the dynasty of Nesi’im from the house of Hillel, was accustomed to give its white clothes to a gentile launderer no fewer than three days before Shabbat. It was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Tzadok said: This was the custom of the house of Rabban Gamliel: They would give white clothes to the gentile launderer three days before Shabbat, and they would give him colored clothes even on Shabbat eve. The Gemara comments: And from their statement we learned that white garments are more difficult to launder than colored ones, as in white garments every stain is more conspicuous.

אַבָּיֵי הֲוָה יָהֵיב לֵיהּ הַהוּא מָנָא דִצְבִיעָא לְקַצָּרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כַּמָּה בָּעֵית עִילָּוֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כִּדְחִיוָּרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּבָר קַדְמוּךָ רַבָּנַן. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דְּיָהֵיב מָנָא לְקַצָּרָא, בְּמִשְׁחָא נִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ וּבְמִשְׁחָא נִשְׁקוֹל מִינֵּיהּ. דְּאִי טְפֵי — אַפְסְדֵיהּ דְּמַתְחֵיהּ. וְאִי בְּצִיר — אַפְסְדֵיהּ דְּכַוְּוצֵיהּ.

On a related note, the Gemara relates that Abaye gave this dyed garment to the launderer. Abaye said to the launderer: How much do you want as payment to wash it? The launderer said to Abaye: Same as for a white garment. Abaye said to him: You cannot deceive me in this matter, as the Sages already preceded you, as it was taught in the baraita which garment is more difficult to wash. On this topic, Abaye said: One who gives clothing to the launderer, he should give it to him by measure and he should take it back from him by measure. In that way, if it is longer, it is an indication that the launderer caused him a loss because he stretched the garment. And if it is shorter, he certainly caused him a loss because he shrunk it.

וְשָׁוִין אֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ, שֶׁטּוֹעֲנִין כּוּ׳: מַאי שְׁנָא כּוּלְּהוּ דִּגְזַרוּ בְּהוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וּמַאי שְׁנָא קוֹרוֹת בֵּית הַבַּד וְעִיגּוּלֵי הַגַּת דְּלָא גְּזַרוּ? הָנָךְ דְּאִי עָבֵיד לְהוּ בְּשַׁבָּת מִיחַיַּיב חַטָּאת — גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁכָה. קוֹרוֹת בֵּית הַבַּד וְעִיגּוּלֵי הַגַּת דְּאִי עָבֵיד לְהוּ בְּשַׁבָּת לָא מִיחַיַּיב חַטָּאת — לָא גְּזַרוּ.

We learned in the mishna that these, Beit Shammai, and those, Beit Hillel, agree that one may load the beam of the olive press and the circular wine press. The Gemara asks: What is different about all of the cases in the mishna, where Beit Shammai issued a decree prohibiting them, and what is different about the beams of the olive press and the circular wine press that Beit Shammai did not issue a decree prohibiting them? The Gemara answers: Those cases, where if he performed them on Shabbat he is rendered liable to bring a sin-offering, Beit Shammai issued a decree prohibiting them on Shabbat eve at nightfall. However, in the cases of the beams of the olive press and the circular wine press, where even if he performed them on Shabbat he is not rendered liable to bring a sin-offering, Beit Shammai did not issue a decree.

מַאן תַּנָּא דְּכֹל מִידֵּי דְּאָתֵי מִמֵּילָא, שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי (בַּר) [בְּרַבִּי] חֲנִינָא: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא, דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוּם וְהַבּוֹסֶר וְהַמְּלִילוֹת שֶׁרִסְּקָן מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: יִגְמוֹר מִשֶּׁתֶּחְשַׁךְ, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר:

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds that anything that comes on its own, and not as the result of an action, it may well be done on Shabbat? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: It is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to the garlic and the unripe grapes, and the stalks of wheat that he crushed while it was still day, Rabbi Yishmael says: He may continue tending to them and finish after it gets dark, as after the crushing is completed these items are placed beneath a weight, so that the liquids will continue to seep out. And Rabbi Akiva says:

לֹא יִגְמוֹר. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הִיא. דִּתְנַן: חַלּוֹת דְּבַשׁ שֶׁרִיסְּקָן בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְיָצְאוּ מֵעַצְמָן — אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַתִּיר.

He may not finish. And the amora Rabbi Elazar said: Our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar the tanna. As we learned in a mishna: With regard to honeycombs that he crushed on Shabbat eve and the honey came out on its own on Shabbat day, it is prohibited to eat the honey, like anything that was prepared on Shabbat. And Rabbi Elazar permits eating it on Shabbat.

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר? אָמַר לָךְ, הָתָם הוּא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא אוֹכֶל וּלְבַסּוֹף אוֹכֶל, הָכָא מֵעִיקָּרָא אוֹכֶל וְהַשְׁתָּא מַשְׁקֶה. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר לָךְ: הָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דַּאֲפִילּוּ זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים נָמֵי שָׁרֵי. דְּהָא כִּי אֲתָא רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא, אֲתָא וְאַיְיתִי מַתְנִיתָא בִּידֵיהּ: זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים שֶׁרִיסְּקָן מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְיָצְאוּ מֵעַצְמָן — אֲסוּרִין. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּירִין. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא בָּרָיְיתָא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, what is the reason he did not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Elazar? Apparently, Rabbi Elazar’s explanation in the mishna is more accurate. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei could have said to you that there, in the case of the honeycombs, it is food from the beginning and it is food at the end, as honey is considered food. Therefore, there was no squeezing of liquid from food at all. However, here, in all of the cases in the mishna, from the beginning they were food and now they became liquid, and that is the definition of squeezing. And Rabbi Elazar could have said to you in response to this assertion: We heard that Rabbi Elazar permitted olives and grapes as well. As when Rav Hoshaya from Neharde’a came, he came and brought a baraita with him, in which it was taught: Olives and grapes that he crushed from Shabbat eve and the liquids seeped out on their own, the liquids are prohibited. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon permit those liquids. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina did not know this baraita.

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא? אָמַר לָךְ: לָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ אָמַר רָבָא בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בִּמְחוּסָּרִין דִּיכָה — דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי בִּמְחוּסָּרִין שְׁחִיקָה. וְהָנֵי נָמֵי כִּמְחוּסָּרִין דִּיכָה דָּמוּ. הוֹרָה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

On the other hand, the Gemara asks: And Rabbi Elazar, what is the reason he did not say in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, that our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Elazar could have said to you: Wasn’t it stated that Rava bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Here it is referring to items that lack grinding, i.e., when the garlic and the unripe grapes were not ground in a pestle at all, everyone agrees that it is prohibited to place them in a manner that causes their liquids to come out on their own on Shabbat. The case where they disagreed was where they were already completely ground, but they were still lacking additional pounding; and these cases in our mishna are also considered as if they were lacking grinding. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina issued a practical ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and permitted a person to finish tending to them even after dark.

שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל בַּדָּדִין וּמַחְצָלוֹת שֶׁל בַּדָּדִין — רַב אָסַר וּשְׁמוּאֵל שָׁרֵי. הָנֵי כְּרָכֵי דְזוּזֵי — רַב אָסַר וּשְׁמוּאֵל שָׁרֵי. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: עֵז לַחֲלָבָהּ, וְרָחֵל לְגִיזָּתָהּ, וְתַרְנְגוֹלֶת לְבֵיצָתָהּ, וְתוֹרֵי דְרִידְיָא, וְתַמְרֵי דְעִיסְקָא — רַב אָסַר, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מוּתָּר. וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Since the Gemara raised issues related to the olive press, it cites other connected matters: Oil of olive pressers and mats of olive pressers, which they use in their work, Rav prohibited moving them on Shabbat since they are set aside for a specific purpose, and it is prohibited to move an item set aside and designated for a defined purpose on Shabbat. And Shmuel permitted doing so, as according to Shmuel, the legal status of set-aside [muktze] does not apply in most cases. Along the same lines, they disagreed with regard to those mats used to cover merchandise transported on a ship. Rav prohibited using them because they are set aside and Shmuel permitted using them. Similarly, Rav Naḥman said: A goat raised for its milk, and a ewe that is raised for shearing its wool, and a chicken raised for its egg, and oxen used for plowing, all of which are designated for purposes other than eating, as well as dates used for commerce; in all of these Rav prohibited using them for food, or slaughtering them even on a Festival due to the prohibition of set-aside. The reason for this is that during the day, before Shabbat, he had no intention of eating them, as he set them aside for a different purpose. And Shmuel said: They are permitted, as in his opinion there is no prohibition of set-aside. The Gemara comments that they disagree in the dispute of the tanna’im Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon with regard to the issue of muktze.

הַהוּא תַּלְמִידָא דְּאוֹרִי בְּחַרְתָּא דְאַרְגֵּיז כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שַׁמְתֵּיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא. וְהָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לַן? בְּאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב הֲוָה לָא אִיבְּעַי לֵיהּ לְמִיעְבַּד הָכִי. הָנֵי תְּרֵי תַלְמִידֵי, חַד מַצִּיל בְּחַד מָנָא, וְחַד מַצִּיל בְּאַרְבַּע וַחֲמֵשׁ מָאנֵי — וְקָמִיפַּלְגִי בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּה בַּר זַבְדָּא וְרַב הוּנָא.

The Gemara relates: There was this student who issued a ruling in the city of Ḥarta De’argiz that items that are set aside are permitted, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and Rav Hamnuna excommunicated him. The Gemara asks: Don’t we hold that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Why, then, did Rav Hamnuna excommunicate him? The Gemara answers: This incident was in the place of Rav and the student should not have done this; even if the accepted ruling is lenient, the city was under Rav’s jurisdiction, and the student’s public ruling, contrary to Rav’s opinion, was a blatant display of disrespect. Incidentally, the Gemara relates a story involving these two students: One would rescue from a fire with one vessel and one would rescue with four and five vessels, as it is permitted to rescue one’s belongings from a fire on Shabbat. They disagreed with regard to whether it is preferable to carry just one vessel and go back and forth several times, or to carry several vessels and go back and forth fewer times. And they disagree with regard to the same issue that was the subject of the dispute of Rabba bar Zavda and Rav Huna elsewhere.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין צוֹלִין בָּשָׂר בָּצָל וּבֵיצָה אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּצּוֹלוּ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. אֵין נוֹתְנִין פַּת לַתַּנּוּר עִם חֲשֵׁכָה, וְלֹא חֲרָרָה עַל גַּבֵּי גֶּחָלִים, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקְרְמוּ פָּנֶיהָ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּקְרוֹם הַתַּחְתּוֹן שֶׁלָּהּ. מְשַׁלְשְׁלִין אֶת הַפֶּסַח בַּתַּנּוּר עִם חֲשֵׁכָה. וּמַאֲחִיזִין אֶת הָאוּר בִּמְדוּרַת בֵּית הַמּוֹקֵד.

MISHNA: This mishna enumerates actions that may only be performed on Shabbat eve if the prohibited labor will be totally or mostly completed while it is still day. One may only roast meat, an onion, or an egg if there remains sufficient time so that they could be roasted while it is still day. One may only place dough to bake into bread in the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall, and may only place a cake on the coals, if there is time enough that the surface of this cake or bread will form a crust while it is still day. Rabbi Eliezer says: Enough time so that its bottom crust should harden, which takes less time. However, in a case that is an exception, one may, ab initio, lower the Paschal lamb into the oven on Shabbat eve at nightfall, so that its roasting is completed on Shabbat if Passover eve coincides with Shabbat eve. And one may, ab initio, kindle the fire in the bonfire of the Chamber of the Hearth in the Temple on Shabbat eve, adjacent to the start of Shabbat, and allow the fire to spread afterward throughout all the wood in the bonfire.