תלמוד על ביצה 1:2

Rebbi Abba Bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Because of these two things did R. Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, you brought this old judge who forbids what I permit and permits what I forbid²³The historicity of this remark is questionable since R. Joḥanan was R. Ḥanina’s student in Sepphoris (at least in matters of Aggadah.) It is reasonable to accept the fact that R. Joḥanan went to Tiberias because there he could be Chief Rabbi.! Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Assi and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained. Because they disagree: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday²⁴If the holiday falls on a Sunday. It is forbidden to light fire on the Sabbath; therefore, the unburned oil or wood from a fire that was burning at the beginning of the Sabbath but later burned out or was extinguished by the wind are no longer usable during that Sabbath. For the Sabbath, it is a requirement that (Ex. 16:5) “they have to prepare what they are going to bring (to use)”. Therefore, on the Sabbath one may use only what was usable before the Sabbath. This rule, if transferred to the holidays, implies that the wood and oil, not being usable a minute before the start of the holiday, cannot become usable on the holiday. If the rule is not transferred to apply to holidays, the fuel becomes permitted at the end of the Sabbath as if it were a weekday.? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Judan said before Rebbi Mana, is it the reverse regarding an egg²⁵Mishnah Beẓah 1:1: “An egg laid on the holiday, the House of Shammai say, it may be eaten, the House of Hillel say, it may not be eaten.” According to the Yerushalmi, in the opinion of the house of Shammai the egg is prepared since the hen itself is potential food before the holiday and an egg inside a slaughtered hen is permitted food. According to the House of Hillel, the egg becomes something new by being laid and the new egg was not usable before the holiday.? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the cases are identical²⁶At least for the House of Hillel. Tosephta Yom Ṭob 1:3: “An egg laid on the Sabbath may be eaten on the holiday. Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, the dispute is the same;” in the Yerushalmi (Beẓah 1:1): “this is the dispute of the House of Shammai.”.

MISHNAH: One who extinguishes a light because he is afraid of Gentiles, of robbers, of evil spirits, or because of a sick person to let him sleep, is not liable¹⁸It is supposed that one extinguishes the light because one is afraid of an attack, whether by people or in the case of a mentally ill person who may become violent under the influence of an evil spirit. The “sick person” mentioned in the Mishnah must have a life-threatening sickness. In all these cases there is a danger to life and one is permitted (or required) to extinguish the light. The formulation mentions “not liable” which usually means “forbidden but not prosecutable” only to obtain a formulation parallel to the statement of R. Yose where the original meaning holds.. If to save the light, to save the oil, to save the wick, he is liable¹⁹Since he completed an action according to his wishes. R. Yose holds (with R. Simeon on other occasions) that if the intent was not the action itself but a consequence of it, then in general the action is not prosecutable. In this case, if the intent was to prevent the clay lamp from bursting when the oil was almost used up, extinguishing the flame is not the object of his intent; the action “was not the object of his intent”. But if the intent was to preserve the wick, extinguishing the fire will automatically produce a charred tip of the wick which is the essence of producing a usable wick (Note 16) and the action is the object of his intent.. Rebbi Yose declares them all not liable except for the wick because he produces charcoal.

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “Rebbi Jehudah said, if a person was afraid that the New Year’s Day might be complemented²⁵This refers to the times when the calendar was not computed but the day of the New Moon was determined by observation. Outside the seat of the Synhedrion the day of the New Moon of Tishre, which is New Year’s Day in the Baylonian calendar, had to be observed for two days since it could be either the 30^th or the 31^st of Elul. This is the only holiday falling on a New Moon. While the holiday lasts two days, it is clear that this is not a question of two distinct sanctities but in fact one of the days is really a weekday, the other a holiday, only it is not known which is which. Rebbi Jehudah, the student of R. Eliezer’s student, follows R. Eliezer and permits two different eruvin. The Sages hold that the two days are legally one long holiday.,” etc. ¹⁶⁹This paragraph also is in Ševiˋit 9:1 (Notes 24–30,7) and Beṣah 1:1 (60a l. 62,י). The latter text is the original. The introductory sentence, “because they disagreed” makes no sense here but is intelligible in the two parallel sources.
While the starting quote is from Mishnah 10, the entire discussion refers to Mishnah 9, a Sabbath preceded or followed by a holiday which is not New Year’s Day. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday¹⁷⁰If the holiday falls on a Sunday, since it is forbidden to light fire on the Sabbath, the unburned oil or wood that was burning at the onset of the Sabbath, but later burned out or was extinguished by the wind are no longer usable on the Sabbath, they become muqṣeh. The rule that (Ex. 16:5) they have to prepare what they are Goin Gto use is given for the Sabbath but is transferred to holidays. Then since oil or wood were not usable a minute before the start of the holiday they cannot become usable on the holiday. If the rule is not transferred, the fuel becomes permitted at the end of the Sabbath.? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg¹⁷¹Mishnah Beṣah 1:1: “An egg laid on the holiday, the House of Shammai say, may be eaten; the House of Hillel say, it may not be eaten.” According to the Yerushalmi, in the opinion of the House of Shammai the egg is prepared since the hen itself is potential food and an egg inside a slaughtered hen is permitted food. According to the House of Hillel, the egg becomes something new by being laid. The new egg was not in existence before the holiday.? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical¹⁷²At least for the House of Hillel. Tosephta Yom Tov 1:3: “An egg laid on the Sabbath may be eaten on the holiday. R. Jehudah said in the name of R. Eliezer, the dispute is the same.”. They said in the name of four Elders¹⁷³According to the Babli 38b the Elders are Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa, R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon, and R. Yose ben R. Jehudah. In Tosephta 4:2 the statement is R. Meïr’s.: If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first [day] he is like the people of his town on the second [day]. Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders¹⁷⁴“There” is Eruvin, “here” is Beṣah, about the leftover fuel. If the status regarding the eruv can change from day to day, it is difficult to see why using the fuel should be forbidden. The Babli notes that Rav Ḥisda asked his question only after Rav Ḥuna’s death.. Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical¹⁷⁶For R. Aḥa it is a tradition which he learned from his teacher, for R. Yose it is a logical inference..