This session on Tractate Shabbat, daf 19, is dedicated by Benjamin Stavrash for a complete recovery for all the sick of the people of Israel, especially those suffering from coronavirus. May the Holy One, blessed be He, send healing through their limbs and organs, and may they be healed together with all the sick of Israel. Amen.
We begin today’s daf at the Mishnah. The Mishnah teaches that on Friday afternoon, one may not place meat, an onion, or an egg on the coals unless it is put there early enough for it to be roasted or cooked before Shabbat. The reason is that we are concerned that a person might stoke the coals on Shabbat in order to speed up the cooking. Beit Hillel agrees that this is prohibited by rabbinic decree unless the food is already cooked. Once the food is already cooked, there is no longer a concern that the person will come to stoke the coals.
The Gemara adds that one may not place bread in an oven close to Shabbat unless there is enough time for the bread to begin forming a crust before Shabbat. In other words, one may not put a cake or bread into the oven before Shabbat unless it has baked to the point that it already has a crust. Once it has formed a crust, there is no concern that a person might come to stoke the coals. The Mishnah specifies the lower part of the bread, and the Gemara will explain exactly what that means.
We find a similar indication concerning the Passover offering. When Passover falls on Shabbat, the offering is brought on Friday, because it may not be roasted on Shabbat. The people would bring it on Friday and roast it Friday afternoon before Shabbat. The Mishnah teaches that they could place the Passover offering in the oven immediately before Shabbat, even though there would not be enough time for it to roast before Shabbat. In this case, there is an exception: we are not concerned that the members of the group will come to stoke the coals, because the members of the group are careful and remind one another. Therefore, there was no reason to institute that decree in this case.
There was a certain area in the Temple called the House of the Hearth. A fire burned there, and when the priests became cold—because they had to walk barefoot—they would enter that room and warm themselves. The Mishnah teaches that on Friday afternoon they could light the fire in the Temple from the wood that was there, and the fire would catch and continue burning throughout Shabbat. We are not concerned that the priests might come on Friday afternoon and stoke the wood in order to help the fire catch, because we have a general principle that priests are careful in these matters.
However, when lighting an ordinary fire made from many pieces of wood, the fire must catch a certain majority of the wood before Shabbat. The Gemara will explain precisely what “the majority” means. This requirement is stricter than the requirement in the Temple. With coals, it is sufficient for even a small amount to catch, because coals generally do not go out. We are therefore not concerned that a person will stoke them in order to keep the fire going. Once a coal catches, it usually continues burning easily, and there is no concern that the person will come to stoke it.
The Gemara now begins its discussion. The Mishnah said that one may not place food on the coals before Shabbat unless it is already cooked. The Gemara asks: How much must it be cooked?
The Gemara introduces the measure known as the food of Ben Derosai. Ben Derosai was described as a bandit who was constantly on the run, and therefore he would eat his food very rare. He would cook his food only to one-third of the normal degree. Nevertheless, at that stage the food was already edible, at least for people like him. Therefore, food cooked to the degree of the food of Ben Derosai is considered sufficiently cooked that we are no longer concerned that a person will come to stoke the coals.
We find another application of this measure concerning cooking by a non-Jew. If a non-Jew cooks food after it has already reached the stage of the food of Ben Derosai, the food is permitted. This means that it is already considered cooked. Once the non-Jew takes over after the food has reached that stage, there is no longer a problem of cooking by a non-Jew.
Furthermore, Hananiah taught that anything cooked before Shabbat to the degree of the food of Ben Derosai may be left on an oven even if the oven has not been cleared of its ashes and coals. Such an oven is called one that has not been swept clean. It is also not covered with ashes, because the coals remain exposed. Nevertheless, we are not concerned that a person will come to stoke them, since the food had already reached the degree of the food of Ben Derosai before Shabbat. The Sages did not institute a decree in that case.
We therefore have several laws concerning the food of Ben Derosai. First, when food is being roasted and reaches that stage, there is no longer a concern that a person will stoke the coals. Second, once food reaches that stage, there is no longer a concern regarding cooking by a non-Jew. Third, once food reaches that stage, it may be left on an oven that has not been cleared of its coals, because we do not suspect that a person will come to stoke them on Shabbat.
The Gemara then quotes the Mishnah: One may not place bread in the oven before Shabbat unless it has begun to form a crust. Rabbi Eliezer says that the bottom part of the bread must have formed a crust. The Gemara asks what is meant by the “bottom” of the bread.
In earlier times, people would take dough and attach it to the wall of the oven. The question is whether the bottom refers to the part of the bread attached to the wall of the oven or to the front of the bread, which is closer to the fire. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Eliezer means the part of the bread attached to the wall of the oven.
We said that the Passover offering could be placed in the oven before Shabbat, and we are not concerned that the people might stoke the coals, even though the offering would not necessarily be cooked before Shabbat. This is because the Passover offering is brought by a group, rather than by an individual, and the members of the group remind one another. Therefore, we do not suspect that they will come to stoke the coals.
The Gemara asks: If not for the fact that the members of the group are careful, would there really be a problem? We previously learned that in the case of a goat, the draft entering the oven damages the meat. Therefore, even if a goat is placed in an oven and the oven is not sealed, there should be no concern that someone will open the oven and stoke the coals, because the draft would ruin the meat. If so, why is the Passover offering permitted only because the members of the group are careful?
The Gemara answers that the earlier discussion concerned pieces of goat meat that had already been cut. When the meat is cut into pieces, the air entering the oven can damage it. The Passover offering, however, is an entire piece of meat and has not been cut up. Therefore, the wind does not damage it. Consequently, there is a concern that someone might open the oven and stoke the coals. Were it not for the fact that the members of the group are careful, the Passover offering would also be subject to that concern.
The Mishnah then discussed the House of the Hearth in the Temple, where there was a large fire made from many pieces of wood. The priests would enter the room from time to time when they were cold and warm themselves. The Mishnah teaches that they could light this fire before Shabbat, and as soon as the fire caught even a small amount, we did not suspect that they would come on Shabbat and stoke it, because priests are careful.
The Gemara asks where this law is derived from. It quotes the verse that says a person may kindle a fire in all his dwelling places on Shabbat. The Gemara derives from this that one may not kindle a fire in all of his dwelling places, but one may kindle a fire in the Temple. This would seem to indicate that it is permissible to light the fire in the House of the Hearth even on Shabbat itself.
The Gemara answers that the verse is not coming to permit lighting the fire in the House of the Hearth on Shabbat. Rather, it teaches that the fats and bones of the daily offering brought on Friday may be burned on Shabbat. This is part of the Temple service. The fire in the House of the Hearth, however, was not for the Temple service; it was simply for the priests to warm themselves. That fire could not be lit on Shabbat itself.
Thus, the permission to kindle a fire in the Temple applied only to burning the fats and bones of the daily offering. It did not permit lighting the fire in the House of the Hearth on Shabbat. Why, then, did the Mishnah permit lighting even a small amount of the wood before Shabbat, although the fire had not yet fully caught? The Gemara answers that priests are especially careful, and therefore we do not suspect that they will come to stoke the fire on Shabbat.
The Gemara returns to the Mishnah’s statement that, when lighting an ordinary fire outside the Temple, the wood must catch “in its majority.” The Gemara asks what this means. Rav says that the fire must catch on the majority of each and every piece of wood in the pile. Shmuel disagrees. According to Shmuel, the requirement is that the fire be sufficiently established that a person will not say, “Bring us more small pieces of wood so that we can place them underneath and help the fire catch.” As long as the fire can continue on its own without the addition of small pieces of wood, it is considered sufficiently lit, and there is no longer a concern that someone will come to stoke it.
The Gemara brings a teaching to support Shmuel: the fire must be lit before Shabbat to the point that it will rise by itself. It need not be burning on every individual piece of wood as Rav said. It is sufficient that it no longer requires outside assistance, such as bringing small pieces of wood to place underneath it as kindling.
The Gemara then discusses a thick log. How much of a round log must be lit before Shabbat so that there is no longer a concern that someone will come to stoke it? Since the log is circular, the Gemara analyzes whether the requirement refers to the majority of its width or the majority of its circumference. One interpretation understands the statement as referring to the majority of the log’s thickness, meaning its width. Another understands it as referring to the majority of its circumference. The conclusion is that the fire must reach the majority of both: the majority of the width and the majority of the circumference.
This issue is based on a disagreement between the Tannaim in a teaching. One opinion says that when lighting an individual log, the fire must catch enough of it to render the wood unusable for work. An artisan uses wood to cut and fashion vessels. Once the wood has burned to a certain degree, it is already ruined and the artisan will no longer use it for that purpose. That stage is considered sufficient.
Another opinion says that the fire must catch on both sides of the log. This means that it must reach the majority of the circumference. Although there is no explicit proof for this from the verses, a verse says that fire consumed the two sides of a tree while its interior remained dry. The verse was discussing the people of Jerusalem, who were compared to a vine that produced no fruit.
A fruitless vine is worse than an ordinary tree that produces no fruit. An ordinary tree can at least be used for fire or for fashioning vessels. A vine, however, is too pliable to be used for making vessels and can be used only for burning. The verse therefore says that after the fire reaches both sides of the vine, it is certainly no longer fit for work. The two sides refer to the majority of the circumference. This provides a basis for the opinion that the fire must reach the majority of the circumference.
The Gemara quotes another verse related to burning wood: “The fire before him was burning.” What does the word used for “fire” refer to? Rav says it refers to willow branches. Shmuel says it refers to pieces of wood burning together, meaning that when a pile of wood is arranged together and the pieces ignite one another, it is described as burning together. Thus, they disagree about the meaning of that word.
The Gemara relates that someone once asked, “Who wants to buy willow branches?” The person was selling willows. This demonstrates that the fire described in the verse was made from willows.
The Gemara then discusses thin reeds. When the reeds are individual and very thin, they do not require the majority to be lit before Shabbat, because they ignite very easily. Once the fire attaches itself to the beginning of a reed, that is sufficient. However, if the reeds are gathered into a bundle, the majority must be lit before Shabbat, because when they are bundled together the fire does not pass through them as easily. We are therefore concerned that a person might come to stoke them on Shabbat unless the majority of the bundle has already caught fire.
The Gemara next discusses the dried pits of dates. When the pits are dry and individual, they do not require the majority to be lit. Once even a small amount catches before Shabbat, the fire will continue, and there is no concern that someone will come to stoke it. However, if the pits are placed in baskets made from palm branches, the majority must be lit before Shabbat, because the fire cannot pass between them as easily when they are bunched together in the basket.
Rav Hisda questions this last ruling. He says that the opposite would seem more logical. When the reeds are individual and not tied together, they scatter, and one reed cannot ignite the other. Since they are separated, it should be a greater problem, and the majority should have to be lit before Shabbat. When they are bundled together, however, they do not scatter, and each reed can ignite the others. That should be a reason to be more lenient and require only a small amount to be lit.
Similarly, when the date pits are separate, they do not ignite one another, so it should be necessary to light the majority. When they are placed in a basket and no longer scatter, they can ignite one another, and it should not be necessary to light the majority. Rav Hisda is therefore saying that there is greater reason to be strict when the materials are separate and greater reason to be lenient when they are bundled together.
Rav Kahana is then quoted concerning reeds that have been bundled together. He agrees with the first opinion: when the reeds are tied together, the majority must be lit before Shabbat, because the fire has difficulty passing through the bundle. When they are separate, the majority does not have to be lit. This is clearly consistent with the first opinion concerning reeds.
Regarding date pits, however, Rav Kahana rules that when they are separate, the majority must be lit, but when they are placed in a basket, the majority does not have to be lit. This is consistent with Rav Hisda. It therefore emerges that Rav Kahana followed one opinion regarding reeds and another opinion regarding date pits.
Rav Yosef taught that there are four types of fuel that do not require the majority to be lit before Shabbat: pitch, sulfur, cheese, and wax. These materials ignite very quickly, and therefore there is no concern that the fire will go out or that a person will come to stoke it. The teaching adds several other materials, including straw and stubble, which likewise do not require the majority to be lit before Shabbat. Once a small amount of them catches, they will continue burning throughout Shabbat.
Rabbi Yohanan said that the pieces of wood in Babylonia also do not require the majority to be lit, because they are highly flammable. Once a small amount is lit before Shabbat, the fire will catch, and there is no concern that someone will come to stoke it.
Rav Yosef challenges this statement. What kind of Babylonian wood is being discussed? Perhaps it refers to fine splinters used as kindling. But Ulla taught that even a wick in oil must be lit before Shabbat to the point that the majority of the wick emerging from the oil has already caught fire. If even a wick requires this measure, certainly these fine pieces of wood should require the majority to be lit.
Rav Yosef therefore answers that the Babylonian wood refers to a material from a cedar tree. The branches of this cedar are very dry and thin, and a fibrous material grows between the outer layer and the bark. This causes the wood to ignite very easily. It is this material from the cedar tree that does not require the majority to be lit before Shabbat.
Rav Hamnuna gives another explanation. He says that the material is a type of grass called zazah or mulcha that grows around a tree. This is the Babylonian material being discussed, and because it ignites so easily, there is no concern that the majority must be lit before Shabbat.
We have now completed the first chapter of Tractate Shabbat. Congratulations to everyone. This is a great accomplishment.
With God’s help, we now begin the second chapter, the familiar chapter called “With What May One Light?” We read this Mishnah every Friday night, so at least the words of the Mishnah should be familiar to us. The Mishnah immediately teaches that there are certain types of wicks and oils that may be used for Shabbat candles and others that may not be used.
The basic concern is that if the wick or oil is inferior, a person might come to move it on Shabbat in order to make the flame burn properly. Moving the oil or adjusting the wick could result in creating or improving a fire on Shabbat. The Mishnah therefore lists the different types of wicks and oils that may not be used.
The Mishnah begins: With what may one light, and with what may one not light? Although the first question asks what may be used, the Mishnah sometimes answers the second question first. The discussion initially concerns wicks.
One may not light with the fibers from a cedar tree. As we learned at the end of the previous chapter, these are fibers that grow between the bark and the wood of the cedar. One may not light with uncombed flax. One may not light with an inferior type of silk. One may not light with the fibers that grow in a willow tree between the bark and the tree itself. One may not light with a type of long grass that people would roll up to make wicks. One may not light with the green moss that grows underneath boats.
All of these wicks are unsuitable for one reason: the fire does not catch onto them properly. They are therefore inferior wicks and may not be used for lighting on Shabbat.
The Mishnah then moves to different types of fuel. One may not use pitch, wax, a type of oil called kik oil, or oil that must be burned. The Gemara will explain each of these. One may not use the fat from the tail of a sheep, nor ordinary animal fat. However, one may use such fat if it was cooked first. The Sages say that whether the fat was cooked or not, it may be used. At first glance, the Sages appear to be saying the same thing as the first opinion, since the first opinion also permits cooked fat. The Gemara will explain the distinction between the two opinions.
The Gemara now begins to define some of the wicks mentioned in the Mishnah. The first item mentioned was the cedar fiber. What is this material? It is the fibrous substance that grows between the bark and the wood of the cedar tree, as we saw at the end of the previous chapter.
The Gemara asks how one could make a wick from this material. At first, the Gemara assumes that it refers to an ordinary piece of wood, which would be more suitable for a bonfire than for a wick. The answer is that the Mishnah is referring to the small fibers found between the wood and the bark. Those fibers can be made into a wick, but the Mishnah says that they may not be used.
The Mishnah also mentioned uncombed flax. What is this? Rav Yosef says that it is the broken flax fibers that fall away from the flax. These pieces are not suitable for lighting. The verse says that the flax will become these loose fibers, which might imply that the two are separate things. The Gemara therefore explains that the term refers to flax that has been beaten, as was customary in order to remove the flax from the stalks, but has not yet been combed. Because it has not been properly combed and prepared, it is unsuitable for making a wick.
The Mishnah then mentioned the inferior silk. Shmuel said that he asked all the sailors what this material was, and they told him that it was called kulcha. It is a moss-like substance, similar to seaweed, that grows on rocks in the water, and people would make wicks from it.
Rabbi Yitzchak bar Ze'idi said that it was a material called gushkera. He explained that it was the inferior part of silk, made from the material produced by the silkworm. It could be formed into threads, but it was not suitable for a wick because it did not burn properly. Thus, there is a disagreement about the meaning of the inferior silk mentioned in the Mishnah. One opinion says that it is the moss or seaweed that grows on rocks in the water, while another says that it is the inferior part of silk.
Ravin and Abaye were sitting before Rabban Nehemiah. They saw that the brother of the Exilarch was wearing a garment made of especially fine silk. Whenever the rabbis saw something, they immediately thought about its halachic significance rather than merely admiring it. One of them said, “That is the inferior silk mentioned in the Mishnah.” According to this view, even fine silk is unsuitable for a wick.
They called the fine silk worn by Rabban Nehemiah the silk of Flanders, rather than the inferior silk mentioned in the Mishnah. Abaye followed the opinion that the Mishnah refers to inferior silk, while the fine silk worn by Rabban Nehemiah was a different material with a different name.
A difficulty is raised against the other opinion from a teaching concerning garments that are obligated in ritual fringes. Some opinions maintain that only garments made from wool or linen are obligated by Torah law, while other garments are not. This teaching holds that silk garments are also obligated by Torah law. It lists several types of silk, including the primary type of silk, the inferior silk, and another type.
What emerges from this teaching is that the primary silk and the inferior silk are two separate materials. According to the opinion that identified the fine silk worn by Rabban Nehemiah as the inferior silk, this creates a difficulty, because the teaching distinguishes between the primary silk and the inferior silk.
The Gemara answers that the silk worn by Rabban Nehemiah was not the primary silk. It was the silk of Flanders, which is considered the inferior silk. The primary silk mentioned in the teaching is a different material. In this way, the statement identifying the silk of Flanders as the inferior silk can be reconciled with the teaching that distinguishes between the primary silk and the inferior silk. The silk worn by Rabban Nehemiah was one type, while the primary silk mentioned in the teaching was another.
The Mishnah next says that one may not use the fibers of a willow tree. What are these fibers? They are a fibrous material that grows in the willow tree, between the bark and the wood itself. The Gemara describes rabbis walking in a valley and seeing willow trees. They recognized that these were the trees mentioned in the Mishnah, but the halachic discussion concerned not the ordinary wood of the tree, but the fibers concealed beneath the bark. Ravina peeled away some of the bark and showed them the fibers that grow between the bark and the tree.
The Mishnah also mentioned the long grass used to make wicks. The Gemara explains that this is a type of grass that can be woven, tied, or braided into a wick.
Finally, the Mishnah mentioned the green material that grows on the surface or underside of water. The Gemara asks what this is. Perhaps it is the green material that grows on top of standing water, but that material falls apart and cannot even be made into a wick.
The Gemara therefore explains that the Mishnah is referring to moss that grows on the bottom of boats when they remain in one place. This moss has a stronger consistency and can be formed into a wick, but the Mishnah says that it may not be used because it does not draw the oil properly.
A teaching adds two more types of wicks that are unsuitable: wool and hair. Tosafot explains, according to one interpretation, that the teaching is adding a different type of disqualification. The wicks listed in the Mishnah are unsuitable because the flame does not catch onto them properly, even if the oil is drawn toward them. The two materials added by the teaching are unsuitable because the oil is not drawn toward them. Thus, there are two different reasons for disqualifying a wick.
The Gemara asks why the Mishnah itself did not mention wool and hair. It answers that wool shrinks when it is lit, and hair burns away completely. Since these materials cannot function as wicks at all, the Mishnah does not need to teach that they may not be used. It is self-evident that one cannot make a proper wick from them.
We will stop here.