The Gemara answers: It was Rav who said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas in the mishna.

The Gemara asks: Say that Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas said it is permitted to place the goat’s hide on the burning item because it singes and does not burn; did he say it is permitted to indirectly cause the fire to extinguish? The Gemara answers: Yes, Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas permitted that as well, and we learn this from that which is taught in the latter clause in the mishna: Rabbi Yosei prohibits using new earthenware vessels that are full of water, because they cannot withstand the fire and will burst and extinguish the fire. This proves by inference that the first tanna, Rabbi Shimon ben Nannas, permits it.

The Sages taught: With regard to a candle that is atop a board, one shakes the board and the candle falls, and if it is extinguished, it is extinguished. The Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: They only taught that this is permitted in a case where one forgets the candle atop the board when Shabbat began. However, in a case where one places it there, the board becomes a base for a prohibited object and may not be moved.

It was taught: With regard to a candle behind a door, one may open and shut the door in his usual manner, and if it is extinguished, it is extinguished. Rav would curse one who did so. Ravina said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, and some say that Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is the reason that Rav cursed and reprimanded one who did so? If you say it is because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that it is prohibited to perform an unintentional act from which a prohibited labor could ensue, and the tanna taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that it is permitted to perform an unintentional act in those circumstances; because Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he curses anyone who teaches the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? They rely on the ruling of a tanna, whose opinion is legitimate.

He said to him: In this case, even Rabbi Shimon concedes that it is prohibited, as it was Abaye and Rava who both said that Rabbi Shimon concedes in a case of: Cut off its head, will it not die? In an instance where the unintentional act leads to an inevitable prohibited consequence, even Rabbi Shimon agrees that the person who performs the unintentional act is liable.

Rav Yehuda said: A person opens a door opposite a fire on Shabbat. The Gemara relates that Abaye would curse anyone who did so. The Gemara clarifies: With what are we dealing? If you say this is referring to a case where a typical wind is blowing outside, what is the reason of the one who prohibits opening the door? A typical wind will neither fan nor extinguish the fire. And if it is referring to a case where an atypical wind is blowing outside, what is the reason of the one who permits opening the door? The Gemara answers: Actually, it is referring to the case of a typical wind. However, one Sage, Abaye, holds that we issue a decree prohibiting to open the door in the case of a typical wind due to a case of an atypical wind, and the other Sage, Rav Yehuda, holds that we do not issue that decree.

We learned in the mishna that one may establish a barrier with all earthenware vessels, and Rabbi Yosei prohibits using new earthenware vessels. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the Rabbis hold that indirect extinguishing is permitted on Shabbat, and Rabbi Yosei holds that indirect extinguishing is prohibited? Didn’t we hear them state the opposite, as it was taught in a baraita: One may establish a barrier with empty vessels, and with full ones that do not typically break. And these are full vessels that do not typically break; metal vessels. Rabbi Yosei says: Even earthenware vessels from the village of Shiḥin and vessels from the village of Ḥananya do not typically break. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is more lenient than the opinions of the Rabbis. And if you say: Reverse the attribution of opinions in the mishna and attribute Rabbi Yosei’s opinion to the Rabbis, and say that Rabbi Yosei is saying his statement in the baraita in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, although he himself disagrees and permits using all vessels. But can you reverse the mishna? Didn’t Rabba bar Taḥalifa say in the name of Rav: Who is the tanna who teaches that indirect extinguishing is prohibited? It is Rabbi Yosei.

Rather, actually, do not reverse the attribution of the opinions in the mishna, and the entire baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it is incomplete and is teaching the following: One may establish a barrier with empty vessels and full ones that do not typically break. And these are vessels that do not typically break: Metal vessels; and vessels from the village of Shiḥin and vessels from the village of Ḥananya also do not typically break, as Rabbi Yosei says: Even vessels from the village of Shiḥin and vessels from the village of Ḥananya do not typically break.

The conclusion is that Rabbi Yosei prohibits indirect extinguishing, and the Rabbis permit it. The Gemara raises a contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and a second statement of the Rabbis; and it raises a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yosei and a second statement of Rabbi Yosei. As it was taught in a baraita: If one had a sacred name of God written on his skin he may neither wash it in water lest it be erased, nor may he smear it with oil, nor may he stand in a place of filth because it is disrespectful of God’s name. If an immersion of mitzva happened to present itself, he wraps a reed over God’s name and then descends and immerses. Rabbi Yosei says: Actually, he descends and immerses in his usual manner, even if it is not an immersion of mitzva, provided that he does not rub the spot and erase the name. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is more lenient than that of the Sages with regard to indirectly causing a prohibited outcome.

The Gemara answers: It is different there because the verse says: “And you shall break down their altars, and you shall smash their pillars, and their sacred trees, and burn with fire, and the graven images of their gods you shall hew down and you shall destroy their name from that place. You shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4). From the prohibition: “You shall not do so,” Rabbi Yosei derives that actually doing so is that which is prohibited; indirectly causing that result is permitted.

The Gemara asks: If so, here too, with regard to Shabbat, it is written: “And the seventh day is Shabbat for the Lord your God, you shall not perform any labor” (Exodus 20:9). And here, too, one could derive: Performance is that which is prohibited; indirectly causing a prohibited action is permitted. The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yosei maintains there is no prohibition in indirectly causing a fire to be extinguished; however, since a person is agitated about his property, if you permit him to indirectly extinguish the fire, he will come to extinguish it directly.

The Gemara asks: If so, there is a contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis: If in the case of a fire, where a person is agitated about his property, nevertheless, the Rabbis hold that indirect extinguishing is permitted; here, in the case of erasing God’s name, all the more so it should be permitted to indirectly cause erasure of God’s name. Why did the Rabbis in the baraita issue a stringent ruling in this matter?

The Gemara rejects this: And how can you understand it that way? What are the circumstances of this reed with which God’s name is covered while immersing according to the Rabbis? If it is firmly attached, it is an interposition; if it is not firmly attached, the water enters and erases the name. The Gemara questions this: If the concern is with regard to an interposition, derive that it is an interposition in any case due to the ink on his skin. The Gemara answers: This is referring to moist ink that does not interpose, as it was taught in a baraita: With regard to blood, and ink, and honey, and milk on a person’s skin, when they are dry, they interpose during immersion; when they are moist, they do not interpose. The Gemara continues: Nevertheless, it is difficult: Why do the Rabbis require wrapping a reed around God’s name?

Rather, Rava bar Rav Sheila said that this is the reasoning of the Rabbis: They hold that it is prohibited for a person to stand before the name of God while naked, and therefore there must be a barrier between one’s naked body and the name. The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that Rabbi Yosei holds that it is permitted to stand before the name while naked? The Gemara answers: No, he does not allow doing so; however, he does not require that the name be covered with a reed. It is sufficient for one to place his hand over the name.

The Gemara asks: If so, according to the Rabbis it should also be sufficient for one to place his hand over it. The Gemara explains: The Rabbis are concerned because sometimes one will forget and remove his hand. The Gemara asks: Shouldn’t Rabbi Yosei also be concerned because sometimes one will forget and remove his hand? Rather, if there is a reed available, Rabbi Yosei indeed concedes that one covers God’s name with it. However, with what situation are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case in which one would have to seek a reed. In that case, the Rabbis hold