and kindle a lamp for him. They said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: They may even roast a small fish for him. That is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who did not prepare an eiruv tavshilin, others may bake one loaf of bread for him, and insulate one pot of food for him, and kindle a lamp for him, and heat one small jug [kiton] of water for him. And some say: They may even roast a small fish for him.

Rava said: Actually, one can say that the mishna is referring to a case where one prepared an eiruv tavshilin, and nevertheless, if he did not insulate hot food on the eve of the Festival for Shabbat he may not do so on the Festival itself, because insulating hot food is different, as it is evident that he is acting with Shabbat in mind and not for the Festival. Beit Shammai view this as a desecration of the sanctity of the Festival.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava’s opinion from the following baraita: Ḥananya says that Beit Shammai say: One may not bake on a Festival for Shabbat that occurs on the following day unless he established a joining of cooked foods with bread, and he may not cook for Shabbat unless he established a joining of cooked foods with a cooked dish, and he may not insulate hot food for Shabbat unless he already had hot food insulated from the eve of the Festival. But this indicates that if he had hot food insulated, he may in any case act in that manner and insulate hot food for Shabbat, even though it is evident that he is acting with Shabbat in mind. This shows that even according to Ḥananya, who rules in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, it is permitted to insulate hot food on a Festival for Shabbat.

Rather, Abaye said that the mishna is referring to a case where he established a joining of cooked foods for this, meaning he baked and cooked before the Festival for the sake of an eiruv, but he did not establish a joining of cooked foods for this, i.e., he did not insulate hot food for Shabbat on the Festival eve. And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Ḥananya, according to Beit Shammai, with Rabban Gamliel’s household being stringent upon themselves in this regard.

§ The mishna states that one of the three stringencies that Rabban Gamliel practiced in accordance with Beit Shammai was that on a Festival one may not set up a candelabrum that fell. The Gemara asks: What prohibited act does one perform when he sets a candelabrum upright? Rav Ḥinnana bar Bisna said: Here, we are dealing with a candelabrum composed of segments that come apart; it is prohibited to reassemble such a candelabrum because it looks like building. As Beit Shammai hold that there is a prohibition against building with regard to vessels, and therefore the pieces of this candelabrum may not be reconnected, whereas Beit Hillel hold that there is no prohibition against building with regard to vessels, and there is also no prohibition against dismantling with regard to vessels. One may therefore reattach the pieces of the candelabrum if they came apart.

The Gemara relates that Ulla once happened to come to the house of Rav Yehuda on a Festival. Ulla’s servant stood and tilted the oil lamp [sheragga], diverting most of the oil to one side, with the intention of preventing the oil from reaching the wick so that the light would be extinguished more quickly. Rav Yehuda raised an objection to Ulla from the following baraita, in which it is taught: One who adds oil to a lamp on Shabbat is liable for performing the prohibited labor of kindling on Shabbat, and one who supplies himself with oil from a lit lamp on Shabbat is liable for performing the prohibited labor of extinguishing, as he causes the light to be extinguished more quickly. This indicates that any action, even an indirect one, that causes a lamp to be extinguished earlier than it would have otherwise is considered extinguishing. Here too, by tilting the lamp, the servant extinguished a light on the Festival, which is prohibited. Ulla said to him: You are indeed correct; the act was performed by my servant without my knowledge.

With regard to the halakha governing extinguishing on a Festival, Rav said: It is permitted to trim the end of a wick that has become charcoal, so that it will burn better; this is not considered extinguishing.

With regard to this same issue, Abba bar Marta raised a dilemma before Abaye: What is the halakha with regard to extinguishing a lamp that is burning in a room on a Festival for another matter, a euphemism for marital relations? Since it is prohibited to have relations in a room where a lamp is burning, may one extinguish a lamp for this purpose? Abaye said to him: One may not extinguish it, as it is possible to have relations in a different room.

Abba bar Marta continued: If he does not have a different room, what should he do? Abaye replied: It is possible to erect for oneself a partition out of sheets and engage in relations on the other side of the partition. Abba bar Marta asked further: If he does not have sheets to erect a partition, what should he do? Abaye answered: It is possible to invert a vessel over the lamp in order to hide the light. Abba bar Marta further inquired: If he does not have a vessel, what should he do? Abaye said to him: It is prohibited; one may not extinguish the lamp.

Abba bar Marta raised an objection to Abaye’s opinion from the following baraita: One may not extinguish a piece of wood in order to save it from being needlessly burned, but if he extinguishes it so that the house or a pot not become smoky, it is permitted. This shows that it is permitted to extinguish a fire on a Festival if it serves people’s needs. Abaye said to him: That baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who permits the performance of prohibited labors on a Festival for all of one’s needs and not only for the preparation of food; when I spoke, it was in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree.

Further on the topic of extinguishing, Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: What is the halakha with regard to extinguishing a fire on a Festival? He clarified his question: Where there is danger to life, I have no dilemma, as in that case it is permitted even on Shabbat. When I raised the dilemma, it was with regard to a case involving only monetary loss. What is the halakha? Rabba said to him: It is prohibited.

Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from the baraita cited above: One may not extinguish a piece of wood in order to save it from being needlessly burned, but if he extinguishes it so that the house or a pot not become smoky, it is permitted. This indicates that extinguishing a fire on a Festival is permitted even if only to prevent a small loss. Rabba replied: That baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; when I spoke, it was in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

§ Rav Ashi raised a dilemma before Ameimar: What is the halakha with regard to painting an eye with a medicinal ointment on a Festival? He elaborated on his question: Where there is a danger to the eye, for example, the illnesses called rira, ditza, dema, dimata, and kadaḥta, or the beginning of an inflammation, I have no dilemma, as in such cases it is permitted to apply an ointment even on Shabbat. When I raised the dilemma, it was with regard to less serious ailments, such as at the end of an inflammation, or in order to brighten one’s eyesight. What is the halakha in such cases? Ameimar said to him: It is prohibited.

Rav Ashi raised an objection to him from the same baraita: One may not extinguish a piece of wood in order to save it from being needlessly burned, but if he extinguishes it so that the house or a pot not become smoky, it is permitted. This indicates that a prohibited labor is permitted on a Festival, if it is performed for the sake of a bodily need. And Ameimar answered him as we answered before, that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara relates that Ameimar permitted painting an eye for medicinal purposes on Shabbat by means of a gentile. Some say that Ameimar himself painted his eye on Shabbat by means of a gentile. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What is your reasoning in permitting this practice? You must rely upon that which Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, said: All the needs of an ill person whose life is not in danger are performed by means of a gentile on Shabbat. And similarly, Rav Hamnuna said: With regard to any matter in which there is no life-threatening danger but only potential illness, one says to the gentile to perform the act, and the gentile performs the act for him.

However, this applies only where the ill person, or any other Jew, does not assist the gentile. But in this case the Master, Ameimar, assists the gentile while the ointment is being applied, as he closes and opens his eye, thereby allowing the ointment to penetrate more deeply. Therefore, this should be prohibited. Ameimar said to Rav Ashi: There is also the opinion of Rav Zevid, who holds in accordance with your opinion; he, too, raised the objection that it should be prohibited due to the fact that the Jew assists the gentile. And I already answered him: The assistance provided by one who assists another in performing a task that the other could essentially have performed himself is insubstantial. Inasmuch as the action is primarily performed by the gentile, the minor assistance given by the Jew may be overlooked.

The Gemara further relates that Ameimar permitted painting an eye with a medicinal ointment on the second day of the festival of Rosh HaShana if the eye is causing pain and requires treatment. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But didn’t Rava say that if a person died on the first day of a Festival, gentiles may attend to his burial; if he died on the second day of a Festival observed in the Diaspora, Jews may attend to his burial? And this is the halakha even on the second day of the festival of Rosh HaShana,