האי כל שאני זכאי באמירתו רשאי אני בחשיכתו כל שאיני זכאי באמירתו איני רשאי בחשיכתו מיבעי ליה אלא אסיפא קאי אבל מחשיך הוא לשמור ומביא פירות בידו האי כל שאני זכאי בחשיכתו רשאי אני באמירתו מיבעי ליה
this phrase: Anything that I am permitted to discuss on Shabbat I am permitted to wait for nightfall for its sake, is not appropriate. Rather, the mishna should have formulated the principle in the negative: With regard to anything that I am not permitted to discuss on Shabbat, I am not permitted to wait for nightfall for its sake, similar to the phraseology at the beginning of the mishna. Rather, it is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, which taught: But he may wait for nightfall in order to guard his produce, and he may bring produce in his hand. But even if this is correct, the phraseology does not fit. It should have said the opposite: Anything for which I am permitted to wait for nightfall I am permitted to discuss.
לעולם אסיפא קאי ואבא שאול אהא קאי דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מותר לאדם לומר לחבירו שמור לי פירות שבתחומך ואני אשמור לך פירות שבתחומי וקאמר אבא שאול לתנא קמא מי לא מודית דמותר אדם לומר לחבירו שמור לי פירות שבתחומך ואני אשמור לך פירות שבתחומי
The Gemara explains: Actually, it is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, and Abba Shaul relates to this statement that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is permitted for a person to say to another on Shabbat: Guard my produce that is in your boundary for me, and I will guard your produce in my boundary for you. And this is what Abba Shaul said to the first tanna: Do you not agree that it is permitted for a person to say to another: Guard my produce that is in your boundary for me, and I will guard your produce that is in my boundary for you? It is in such a case that Abba Shaul permitted waiting for nightfall at the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order to guard produce.
ואימא כל שאני זכאי באמירתו רשאי אני להחשיך עליו כלל לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דתנו רבנן אין מחשיכין על התחום להביא בהמה היתה עומדת חוץ לתחום קורא לה והיא באה כלל אמר אבא שאול כל שאני זכאי באמירתו רשאי אני להחשיך עליו
The Gemara still finds this difficult: And say simply: With regard to anything that I am permitted to discuss, I am permitted to wait for nightfall for its sake. When Abba Shaul stated that his ruling was a general principle, what did that come to include? The Gemara answers: It comes to include that which the Sages taught in the Tosefta: One may not wait for nightfall at the Shabbat boundary in order to bring an animal immediately after Shabbat. If the animal is standing right outside of the boundary, one may call it so that it will come to him. Abba Shaul said a general principle: With regard to anything that I am permitted to discuss on Shabbat, I am permitted to wait for nightfall for its sake. Here, since it is permitted to call to the animal, it is also permitted to wait for nightfall in order to retrieve it.
ומחשיכין לפקח על עסקי כלה ועל עסקי המת להביא לו ארון ותכריכין ואומרים לו לך למקום פלוני ואם לא מצאת במקום פלוני הבא ממקום פלוני לא מצאת במנה הבא במאתים רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר ובלבד שלא יזכיר לו סכום מקח:
The Sages also said: And all agree that one may wait for nightfall to attend to the needs of a bride and the needs of a corpse, such as to bring it a coffin and shrouds. And one may say to him, to one’s messenger, on Shabbat: Go to such and such place to buy them, and if you do not find them in that place, bring them from such and such a place. Similarly, one may instruct one’s messenger: If you do not find them for one hundred dinar, buy them for two hundred. However, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One is permitted to give instructions to a messenger on Shabbat, provided one does not mention to him a specific monetary amount to spend on the transaction.
מתני׳ מחשיכין על התחום לפקח על עסקי כלה ועל עסקי המת להביא לו ארון ותכריכים גוי שהביא חלילין בשבת לא יספוד בהן ישראל אלא אם כן באו ממקום קרוב עשו לו ארון וחפרו לו קבר יקבר בו ישראל ואם בשביל ישראל לא יקבר בו עולמית:
MISHNA: One may wait for nightfall at the Shabbat boundary to attend to the needs of a bride and the needs of a corpse, such as to bring him a coffin and shrouds. If a gentile brought flutes on Shabbat in order to play music during the eulogy and funeral procession, a Jew may not eulogize with them as accompaniment, unless they were brought from a nearby location within the Shabbat boundary and transporting them did not include any violation of halakha. If gentiles made someone a coffin and dug him a grave on Shabbat, and they then changed their minds and decided to give it to someone else, a Jew may be buried in it. However, if it was initially intended for a Jew, a Jew may never be buried in it.
גמ׳ מאי ממקום קרוב רב אמר ממקום קרוב ממש ושמואל אמר חיישינן שמא חוץ לחומה לנו
GEMARA: The mishna taught that if a gentile brought something from a nearby location on Shabbat, a Jew is permitted to make use of it. The Gemara asks: What exactly is considered to be from a nearby location? Rav said: Something that is from a location that is actually nearby, meaning that we know with certainty where the object was brought from. And Shmuel said: Even if we do not know exactly where it was brought from, we are concerned that it may have stayed overnight just outside the city wall, which is still within the Shabbat boundary, and no prohibition was violated for the sake of the object. Therefore, it would only be prohibited to use such an object if it was known with certainty that it had been brought from outside the Shabbat boundary. Thus, Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to a situation in which we do not know where the object was brought from on Shabbat.
דיקא מתניתין כוותיה דשמואל דקתני עשה לו ארון וחפר לו קבר יקבר בו ישראל אלמא מספיקא שרי הכא נמי מספיקא שרי
The language of the mishna is precise according to Shmuel’s opinion, as it teaches: If a gentile made someone a coffin and dug him a grave on Shabbat and then changed his mind and decided to give it to someone else, a Jew may be buried in it. Consequently, we can derive that if it is uncertain whether the coffin and grave were made for a Jew, it is permitted. Here, too, in a case in which a gentile brings flutes, if it is uncertain whether their transportation was in violation of halakha, it is permitted.
ותניא כוותיה דרב עיר שישראל וגוים דרים בה והיתה בה מרחץ המרחצת בשבת אם רוב גוים לערב רוחץ בה מיד אם רוב ישראל ימתין עד כדי שיחמו חמין מחצה על מחצה (אסור וימתין) עד כדי שיחמו חמין רבי יהודה אומר באמבטי קטנה אם יש בה רשות רוחץ בה מיד
And a baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In the case of a city in which both Jews and gentiles live and in which there is a bathhouse that functions on Shabbat, if there is a majority of gentiles in the city, the halakha is that in the evening, after Shabbat, a Jew may bathe in it immediately. If there is a majority of Jews in the city, a Jew must wait until the amount of time necessary to heat up water after Shabbat has passed, so that one will not benefit from the fact that the water was heated on Shabbat. If the population of the city is half Jewish and half gentile, it is prohibited to bathe there immediately after Shabbat, and one must wait until the amount of time necessary to heat up water after Shabbat has passed. Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a small bath, if there is a ruling power in the city, a Jew may bathe in it immediately after Shabbat.
מאי רשות אמר רב יהודה אמר רב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה אם יש בה אדם חשוב שיש לו עשרה עבדים שמחממין לו עשרה קומקומין בבת אחת באמבטי קטנה מותר לרחוץ בה מיד:
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning the phrase: A ruling power? Rav Yehuda said that Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: It means that if there is an important person in the city who has ten slaves who heat ten water jugs [kumkumin] for him at once in a small bath, it is permitted for a Jew to bathe in it immediately after Shabbat. This is because this bath may have been heated immediately after Shabbat for the use of this important person, rather than on Shabbat itself.
עשו לו ארון וחפרו לו קבר וכו׳: אמאי הכא נמי ימתין בכדי שיעשו אמר עולא בעומד באסרטיא תינח קבר ארון מאי איכא למימר אמר רבי אבהו במוטל על קברו:
The mishna taught that if gentiles made someone a coffin and dug him a grave and then changed their minds and decided to make it available to someone else, it is permitted for a Jew to be buried in it. The Gemara asks: Why? Here, too, one should at the very least have to wait after Shabbat the amount of time necessary for them to do the work after Shabbat. The Gemara answers: Ulla said: The mishna is addressing a case in which the grave is located in a public street. This indicates that it was intended for a gentile because Jews are not usually buried there. The Gemara asks further: Granted, in the case of a grave, the halakha is understandable. However, in the case of a coffin, what is there to say? Why isn’t a Jew required to wait after Shabbat for the amount of time it would take to make the coffin? Rabbi Abbahu said: The mishna addresses a case in which the coffin was already placed over the grave of a gentile, which proves that it was intended for him.
מתני׳ עושין כל צרכי המת סכין ומדיחין אותו ובלבד שלא יזיז בו אבר שומטין את הכר מתחתיו ומטילין אותו על החול בשביל
MISHNA: One may perform all of the needs of the dead on Shabbat. One may smear oil on the body and rinse it with water, and all of this is permitted provided that one does not move any of its limbs, which would constitute a violation of the laws of set-aside objects. When necessary, one may also remove a pillow from beneath it and thereby place it on cold sand in order