שבת מב

שבת מב

מוּתָּר.

is permitted, since one did not intend to perform that prohibited labor.

לְמֵימְרָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ? וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְכַבִּין גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִזּוֹקוּ בָּהּ רַבִּים, אֲבָל לֹא גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל עֵץ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן — אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁל עֵץ נָמֵי!

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Shmuel, who permits adding water even in an amount sufficient to harden a vessel, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one may perform an action that inadvertently results in a prohibited labor? Didn’t Shmuel say: One may extinguish a piece of white-hot metal in a public area on Shabbat so that the masses will not be injured? That is because the piece of white-hot metal is not actual fire and extinguishing it is prohibited by rabbinic decree, not Torah law. The Sages did not issue decrees in situations where there is concern for public safety. However, one may not extinguish a red-hot wood coal because extinguishing it is prohibited by Torah law. And if it would enter your mind that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it should even be permitted to extinguish wood as well. When one extinguishes the coal, he intends neither to perform a prohibited labor nor to derive any benefit. He merely intends to prevent the coal from causing injury. Extinguishing the coal is a labor not necessary for its own sake. Rabbi Shimon says that one who performs a labor not necessary for its own sake is exempt.

בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בִּמְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר רָבִינָא: הִלְכָּךְ קוֹץ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מוֹלִיכוֹ פָּחוֹת פָּחוֹת מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, וּבְכַרְמְלִית אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא.

The Gemara responds: In the case of an unintentional act, Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. In the case of labor not necessary for its own sake, he holds that he is liable, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Ravina said: Therefore, a thorn in the public domain that is liable to cause injury, one may move it from there in increments, each less than four cubits, on Shabbat. Although the Torah prohibits carrying an object four cubits in the public domain on Shabbat, carrying less than four cubits is prohibited only by rabbinic law. From Shmuel’s statement, it is clear that the Sages did not issue a decree in any case where there is a threat to the masses. And, therefore, if the thorn was in a karmelit, where the prohibition to carry is by rabbinic law, one is permitted to carry it even more than four cubits.

אֲבָל נוֹתֵן כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: נוֹתֵן אָדָם חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ הַצּוֹנֵן, וְלֹא הַצּוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ הַחַמִּין, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ הַצּוֹנֵן וּבֵין צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ הַחַמִּין מוּתָּר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּכוֹס, אֲבָל בְּאַמְבָּטִי — חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ הַצּוֹנֵן, וְלֹא צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ הַחַמִּין. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹסֵר. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא.

We learned in the mishna: However, one may place water into an urn in order to warm it. The Sages taught in a baraita: A person may place hot water into cold water, but not cold into hot; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. In their opinion the cold water becomes heated by the hot water beneath it. And Beit Hillel say: Both hot into cold and cold into hot are permitted. However, Beit Hillel did not permit this in all cases. In what case is this said? It is in the case of a cup. However, in a bath with a lot of water, it is permitted to pour hot into cold but not cold into hot. And Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits even putting hot into cold. Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya in this matter.

סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר סֵפֶל הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאַמְבָּטִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: סֵפֶל אֵינוֹ כְּאַמְבָּטִי. וּלְמַאי דִּסְלֵיק אַדַּעְתָּא מֵעִיקָּרָא דְּסֵפֶל הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאַמְבָּטִי, וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא, אֶלָּא בְּשַׁבָּת רְחִיצָה בְּחַמִּין לֵיכָּא!

Rav Yosef thought to say that the legal status of a basin [sefel], which is a vessel used for washing, is like that of a bath, and it is prohibited to pour water into it. Abaye said to him that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught a baraita: A basin is not like a bath in terms of pouring water into it. The Gemara asks: And according to what entered Rav Yosef’s mind initially, that a basin is like a bath with regard to this halakha, and Rav Naḥman said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya in this matter, does that mean that on Shabbat there is no possibility of washing with hot water? No all-encompassing prohibition of washing with hot water on Shabbat was ever taught.

מִי סָבְרַתְּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי? אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי: וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין בֵּין חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן וּבֵין צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ הַחַמִּין, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹסֵר צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ חַמִּין. לֵימָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא דְּאָמַר כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי? — הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בְּדָבָר זֶה.

The Gemara replies: Do you think that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya is referring to the latter clause of the mishna? No, he is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where we learned that Beit Hillel permit both hot water into cold and cold water into hot, and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya prohibits placing cold water into hot. The Gemara asks: If so, say that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. Isn’t the halakha generally established according to Beit Hillel? The Gemara explains: He said the following: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not dispute this matter. Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya had a different tradition with regard to the opinions of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: חֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא דְּלָא קָפֵיד אַמָּנָא — מִדְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: נוֹתֵן אָדָם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם לְתוֹךְ סֵפֶל שֶׁל מַיִם, בֵּין חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן וּבֵין צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ חַמִּין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּמַפְסֵיק כְּלִי! אָמַר לֵיהּ — ״מְעָרֶה״ אִיתְּמַר: מְעָרֶה אָדָם קִיתוֹן שֶׁל מַיִם לְתוֹךְ סֵפֶל שֶׁל מַיִם, בֵּין חַמִּין לְתוֹךְ צוֹנֵן, בֵּין צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ חַמִּין.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I saw that Rava was not strict in the case of a vessel and made no distinction between cold and hot. From where did he derive this leniency? From a baraita that Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: A person may place a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold and cold into hot. Rav Huna said to Rav Ashi: There is a weakness in this proof, as perhaps there it is different because the vessel forms a partition between the hot and cold water. He is not pouring cold water into the basin itself but is placing a jug whose sides form a partition into the basin. He said to him: The term pour was stated in that baraita. This is the correct version: A person may pour a jug of water into a basin of water, both hot into cold or cold into hot. Therefore, there is no room to distinguish between the two cases.

מַתְנִי׳ הָאִילְפָּס וְהַקְּדֵרָה שֶׁהֶעֱבִירָן מְרוּתָּחִין — לֹא יִתֵּן לְתוֹכָן תַּבְלִין.

MISHNA: In continuation of the discussion of vessels where the prohibition of cooking applies even though the vessels are not actually on the fire itself, the mishna establishes: A stew pot [ilpas] and a pot that were removed from the fire while they were still boiling, even if they were removed before Shabbat, one may not place spices into them on Shabbat itself. Even though the pot is not actually standing on the fire, the spices are still cooked in it because the pot is a primary vessel, i.e., a vessel whose contents were cooked on the fire.

אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא לְתוֹךְ הַקְּעָרָה אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַתַּמְחוּי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לַכֹּל הוּא נוֹתֵן, חוּץ מִדָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חוֹמֶץ וָצִיר.

However, one may place the spices into a bowl or into a tureen [tamḥui], which is a large bowl into which people pour the contents a stew pot or a pot. Bowls and tureens are both secondary vessels and food placed into them does not get cooked. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may place spices into anything on Shabbat except for a vessel that has in it something containing vinegar or brine of salted fish.

גְּמָ׳ אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַרֵישָׁא קָאֵי — וּלְקוּלָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא אַסֵּיפָא קָאֵי — וּלְחוּמְרָא.

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Yehuda referring to the first clause of the mishna and being lenient? According to that possibility, the mishna prohibits placing spices into any boiling pot and Rabbi Yehuda holds that this only applies if there is fish brine or vinegar inside the pot. Or perhaps he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna and is being stringent? The Rabbis said that one is permitted to place spices into a bowl or a tureen, and Rabbi Yehuda came to add a stringency and say that if the bowl or tureen contains vinegar or brine, it is prohibited to place spices into it.

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לְכׇל אִילְפָּסִין הוּא נוֹתֵן, לְכׇל הַקְּדֵירוֹת רוֹתְחוֹת הוּא נוֹתֵן, חוּץ מִדָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ חוֹמֶץ וָצִיר.

Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from that which was taught explicitly in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Into all stew pots one may place spices on Shabbat; into all pots, even those that are boiling, one may place spices, except for one that contains vinegar or brine. The baraita clearly indicates that Rabbi Yehuda disputes the first clause of the mishna and is being lenient.

סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר מֶלַח הֲרֵי הוּא כְּתַבְלִין, דְּבִכְלִי רִאשׁוֹן — בָּשְׁלָה, וּבִכְלִי שֵׁנִי — לָא בָּשְׁלָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא, מֶלַח אֵינָהּ כְּתַבְלִין, דְּבִכְלִי שֵׁנִי נָמֵי בָּשְׁלָה! וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: צְרִיכָא מִילְחָא בִּישּׁוּלָא כְּבִשְׂרָא דְתוֹרָא.

Rav Yosef thought to say that salt is like a spice whose legal status is: In a primary vessel that was on the fire, salt gets cooked and therefore it is prohibited to place salt into it on Shabbat. And in a secondary vessel, into which the contents of a primary vessel were poured, salt does not get cooked. Abaye said to him: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya already teach that salt is not like a spice? Certainly he meant that in a secondary vessel it also gets cooked. And the Gemara remarks that this conclusion disputes the statement of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said: Salt requires cooking for as long as the meat of an ox does, i.e., it requires extensive cooking.

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר מֶלַח הֲרֵי הוּא כְּתַבְלִין, דְּבִכְלִי רִאשׁוֹן — בָּשְׁלָה, בִּכְלִי שֵׁנִי — לָא בָּשְׁלָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא מֶלַח אֵינָהּ כְּתַבְלִין, דְּבִכְלִי רִאשׁוֹן נָמֵי לָא בָּשְׁלָה, וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: צְרִיכָא מִילְחָא בִּישּׁוּלָא כְּבִישְׂרָא דְתוֹרָא.

And some say a very different version of this: Rav Yosef thought to say that salt is like a spice, i.e., in a primary vessel it gets cooked, whereas in a secondary vessel it does not get cooked. Abaye said to him: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya already teach that salt is not like a spice, meaning that in a primary vessel, it also does not get cooked? And that is precisely what Rav Naḥman said: Salt requires cooking for as long as the meat of an ox does.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין נוֹתְנִין כְּלִי תַּחַת הַנֵּר לְקַבֵּל בּוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן. וְאִם נְתָנוּהָ מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם — מוּתָּר, וְאֵין נֵיאוֹתִין מִמֶּנּוּ לְפִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִן הַמּוּכָן.

MISHNA: From a discussion of the halakhot of insulation and preparation for Shabbat followed by a brief tangent dealing with the prohibited labor of cooking on Shabbat, the mishna proceeds to briefly discuss prohibitions relating to set-aside [muktze] items in terms of Shabbat lamps. One may not place a vessel beneath the oil lamp, the vessel containing the oil and the wick, on Shabbat in order to receive the oil that drips from the wick. And if one placed the vessel on Friday while it was still day, it is permitted. However, in any case, one may not make use of the oil on Shabbat because it is not from the oil prepared from Shabbat eve for use on Shabbat. The oil in the lamp was already set aside and designated solely for the purpose of lighting the lamp.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֵין נוֹתְנִין כְּלִי תַּחַת תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת לְקַבֵּל בֵּיצָתָהּ, אֲבָל כּוֹפֶה עָלֶיהָ כְּלִי שֶׁלֹּא תִּשָּׁבֵר. אָמַר רַבָּה: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא? קָסָבַר, תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת עֲשׂוּיָה לְהַטִּיל בֵּיצָתָהּ בָּאַשְׁפָּה, וְאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְהַטִּיל בֵּיצָתָהּ בִּמְקוֹם מִדְרוֹן. וְהַצָּלָה מְצוּיָה הִתִּירוּ, וְהַצָּלָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה — לֹא הִתִּירוּ.

GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda said: Although the Sages said that one may not place a vessel beneath a hen preparing to lay an egg on Shabbat on an inclined surface, in order to receive its egg and prevent it from breaking when it falls; however, they permitted overturning a vessel onto an egg on Shabbat so that it will not be trampled and break. Rabba said: What is Rav Ḥisda’s reason? He holds that a hen is likely to lay its egg in a garbage dump and people or animals will oftentimes step on it, but it is not likely to lay its egg on an inclined surface where the egg could roll down and break. And in a common case of preservation, the Sages permitted overturning a vessel onto the egg that is located in the garbage dump to protect it from being broken. And in an uncommon case of preservation, i.e., placing a vessel beneath a hen to receive its egg so that it would not roll down an inclined surface, they did not permit doing so.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהַצָּלָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה לֹא הִתִּירוּ?! וְהָתַנְיָא: נִשְׁבְּרָה לוֹ חָבִית שֶׁל טֶבֶל בְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ, מֵבִיא כְּלִי וּמַנִּיחַ תַּחְתֶּיהָ! — בְּגוּלְפֵי חַדְתֵי דִּשְׁכִיחִי דְּפָקְעִי.

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s opinion from a baraita: And is it so that in an uncommon case of preservation they did not permit taking steps to protect the object on Shabbat? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One whose barrel of untithed produce [tevel], which may not be eaten until it is tithed, broke on top of his roof on Shabbat, may bring a vessel and place it beneath the barrel so that the untithed produce is not lost. Even though eating untithed produce is prohibited on Shabbat, they permitted carrying a vessel to preserve it even in the uncommon case of a barrel that breaks. Apparently, even in an uncommon case of preservation the Sages permit taking the necessary steps. Rabba answered: This too, is a common case of preservation because it is an instance of new barrels [gulfei], which commonly break.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: נוֹתְנִין כְּלִי תַּחַת הַנֵּר לְקַבֵּל נִיצוֹצוֹת? — נִיצוֹצוֹת נָמֵי שְׁכִיחִי.

Abaye raised another objection to Rabba’s opinion from the last mishna in this chapter: One may place a vessel beneath the oil lamp in order to receive burning sparks of oil that drip from the burning wick even though this is not common. Rabba answered: Sparks are also common and therefore, it is a common case of preservation.