Proof #2: However, it is forbidden to do so for pay, meaning that it is forbidden to hire by the day. This is only regarding movable objects that are not attached to the ground. However, regarding items that are attached to the ground, it is forbidden. In a different city, whether it is movable or attached it is permitted. Rebbi Shimon bar Kahana says in the name of Rebbi Acha that regarding Shabbos, Aveilus, and Avodah Zarah the law follows Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.

Retraction: When Rabeinu Tam built his house, he did not rely on his leniency and he did not permit the Nochri builder to build on Shabbos.

Opinion: However, regarding a field this is permitted as per the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. This is because it is normal for a Nochri to work a field as a sharecropper and not as a day worker.

Opinion (cont.): When a Jew tells a Nochri to fix his shoes or to buy something for him, he should not say, "Do it tomorrow (on Shabbos)." This makes him into a day laborer. Rather, he should say, "Do it when you get around to it."

Opinion (cont.): If the Nochri brings him back his clothes and he knows that the Nochri cleaned them on Shabbos, he cannot wear them on Shabbos.

Proof: This is as the Gemara says later (122a) that if a Nochri lights a candle for a Jew on Shabbos, it is forbidden to benefit from that candle (Tosfos Yeshanim).

Implied Question: The Gemara later (23a) says that all oils are good for ink. The Gemara proceeds to ask, is this referring to mixing them into a paste/dough or making them smoky?(In our Gemara we say ink does not mix into a paste!)

Answer: This does not mean mixing into a paste, but rather being mixed together (without making dough or paste).

Question: The Gemara later (155b) says that animal food does not mix into dough, yet Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says that one is only liable if he mixes it!

Answer: The Gemara there (ibid.) means that compared to flour it does not mix, but it can be mixed into a dough more than ink can be made into a dough. This is why our Gemara does not quote this Gemara later (155b) in regards to ink.

Question: This proves difficult for those who explain the Gemara in Beitzah (32b) that says "Kitma is permitted" as meaning that when a person puts water together with ash in order to seal an oven it is permitted because ash does not mix into a dough/paste. Our Gemara implies that on the contrary, it is easier to be liable for something which does not mix well (as we see one is liable for animal food even though it does not actually turn into an effective paste/dough)!

Answer: Rather, it is possible to explain that when the Gemara (ibid.) says "Kitma is permitted" it means to put it around the oven without using water. The novelty of this statement is that we do not forbid this lest one come to make a paste/dough for this purpose (that will be more effective) on Yom Tov.

Question: The Gemara later (108b) says that one can soak medicinal eye patches before Shabbos, and put them under one's eye on Shabbos. If so, we see that on Shabbos one can also put one these patches (unlike our Beraisa)!

Answer: It is possible to answer that the Gemara later is referring to a healthy person who is not putting the patch on the eye itself for the purpose of healing, but rather is putting it under his eye for pleasure. The decree of grinding up medicinal herbs does not apply in this situation. Our Gemara is referring to putting the patch on the eye for healing, which is only permitted on Erev Shabbos.

Implied Question: The Gemara asks a question about the flax pieces more than from ink, medicinal herbs, and animal food. (Why?)

Answer #1: This is because regarding these other items it is clear that no action is taken. However, regarding the flax, the oven (i.e. a vessel) does an action to it when it heats it.

Answer #2: Additionally, regarding these other items a vessel was not mentioned. However, regarding the flax pieces an oven is mentioned.

Question: According to the Gemara's conclusion that Beis Shamai is the opinion that Shevisas Keilim is a Torah law, what is Rav Yosef's question that we should say the reason is Shevisas Keilim? Isn't Rabah's reason of Hashma'as Kol that can be established according to Beis Hillel a better reason?

Answer: Rav Yosef does not hold of Hashma'as Kol at all. He would rather say that this is according to Beis Shamai and due to Shevisas Keilim.

Explanation: It appears that Rabah holds that Beis Shamai's reasoning is not due to Shevisas Keilim. Rather, he holds that Beis Shamai merely decrees these things are forbidden lest one come to do them on Shabbos.

Proof: If Rabah also holds that Beis Shamai's reasoning is due to Shevisas Keilim, why would Rav Yosef have to quote the Beraisa? Our Mishnah seemingly has cases where Beis Shamai rules stringently, seemingly due to Shevisas Keilim!

Proof: Additionally, the Gemara later (19a) says that since if one does these things on Shabbos he is liable to bring a Chatas, Beis Shamai decreed that he cannot do them immediately before Shabbos as well. This implies that Beis Shamai's reasoning is due to a decree, not because of Shevisas Keilim.

Implied Question: One cannot ask according to Rav Yosef why Beis Shamai does not forbid loading olives under a beam due to Shevisas Keilim.

Answer: In that case it happens by itself much more than in all of the other cases in the Mishnah.

Question: According to Rabah, who is the author of the Beraisa that Shevisas Keilim is a Torah prohibition?

Answer: Rabah holds that the author of the Beraisa is indeed Beis Shamai, but they only apply this reason when an action is done. When one is not doing an action, as in the cases of the Mishnah, their reason is due to a decree lest one come to do this on Shabbos (not because of Shevisas Keilim). The case of nets in the Mishnah refers to sharp sticks and lines with hooks (that are not vessels as there is no inside to it, see Gitin 60b-61a).

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that the law follows Rav Yosef who says that the Beraisa is according to Beis Shamai.

Proof: This is apparent from the fact that Rav Oshiya holds like him.

Observation: According to this, a mill is permitted, as Rav Yosef understands that Beis Hillel holds this is permitted even if he does an action, and he does not worry about Hashma'as Kol.

Opinion #2: It appears to me that Rav Oshiya does not say the Beraisa is like Beis Shamai. Rather, the Gemara says that this must be Beis Shamai according to Rav Yosef who says the problem is Shevisas Keilim. However, it is possible that Rav Oshiya understands it is according to Beis Hillel, and he holds of the reason of Hashma'as Kol, as does Rabah.

Opinion #2 (cont.): This is also the ruling of Rabeinu Chananel, that the reason the case of the mill is prohibited is due to Hashma'as Kol and it is according to Beis Shamai.

Proof: Additionally, the Gemara later can only be established according to Rabah, as I have explained previously. We rule like Rav Oshiya that the Tana who holds of Shevisas Keilim is Beis Shamai.

Observation: It is therefore permitted to lend Keilim to a Nochri, and there is no problem with the fact that the Nochri is working with them on Shabbos. However, it is prohibited to lend out one's animal to a Nochri over Shabbos, as one is commanded in Shevisas Behemto according to Torah law.

Observation: Now that Beis Shamai's reasoning is Shevisas Keilim, the first three cases prohibiting soaking ink, medicinal herbs, flax pieces, and setting up nets is due to Shevisas Keilim, as the Melachah is done in the vessel and the vessel does the Melachah.

Observation (cont.): However, selling animals to a Nochri, giving skins to a tanner, and giving clothes to a cleaner are not prohibited due to Shevisas Keilim. The fact that the skins are being worked upon by the chemicals does not mean that the skins are doing a Melachah, rather the tanner is doing a Melachah to them. Similarly when clothing is becoming whiter the cleaner is doing this to the clothing (as opposed to the Melachah being done by the clothing).

Observation (cont.): Rather, the reason that Beis Shamai forbids these cases is because he will be confused with the person who sent him. This is also why the cases of the incense and sulfur that are established later as when they are placed on the ground also are not considered Shevisas Keilim, even though the clothing hung above it is treated by the sulfur and colored by the incense. This is as I have explained that if the Melachah is not being done inside the item, Shevisas Keilim does not apply.

Explanation: Even though the Gemara in Nedarim (45a) says that declaring something to be ownerless must be done in front of three people, three people are not required here, as we can assume he indeed declares it ownerless.

Implied Question: One cannot rely upon this to rent out a horse to a Nochri and to then declare it ownerless. (Why not?)

Answer: Our Gemara's case is different, as it cannot be done in any other way. Additionally, it is not public knowledge.

Explanation: The Gemara concludes that the reason for this is lest he come to stoke the coals. Even though there is a lot of time for it to heat up, we suspect that it might cool down because it is usually on a low fire and it could therefore need stoking.

Explanation: This would be coloring.

Implied Question: One does not need to suspect that it will become uncovered and he will stir it. (Why not?)

Answer #1: It is less common to stir it as much as to stoke it.

Answer #2: Additionally, it is possible that it is covered tightly.

Explanation: It must be that it was not yet cooked to the point of Machal ben Derusai. If it was, it would be permitted to put in on the stove even though it is not Garuf or Katum.

Opinion: The Bahag explains that the Gemara from here on is discussing roasting.

Proof #1: This is implied from the fact that it quotes the Mishnah, "One cannot roast meat, an onion, and an egg etc."

Proof #2: Our Gemara (regarding the goat) is also quoted later in our chapter regarding hanging up the Korban Pesach to roast (19b-20a). This is why the meat of a big ram, in a case where the mouth of the oven is not sealed with plaster, is forbidden even if the meat is raw. Since it is being roasted it is fit to eat it at night, and one will come to stoke the fire.

Question #1: According to Rav Ashi, who permits the meat of a large ram when the oven is not sealed with plaster and only forbids meat over open coals (as opposed to in an oven), the Mishnah (19a) that says one cannot put bread in an oven is seemingly difficult.

Question #2: Additionally, we say that one is allowed to hang the Korban Pesach up to roast before Shabbos because the people in a group who are eating the Korban Pesach are careful, and they are not going to stoke the fire (20b). Even without this reason it should be permitted according to Rav Ashi!

Answer: It is possible to say that these cases are where the oven is open (as opposed to a closed oven where the coals are less accessible), similar to the case of meat over coals.

Opinion: It appears that the law does not follow Rav Ashi who in this version permits meat of a large ram when the oven is not sealed.

Proof #1: This is apparent from the Gemara earlier that says, "since the wind is difficult for it he will not let it be uncovered," which is clearly unlike Rav Ashi (as that is the reason it is permitted, not because it is closed in general and the coals are inaccessible).

Proof #2: Similarly, the Gemara later regarding the careful people involved in the Korban Pesach answers, "This one is cut up" meaning that wind is difficult for it (does not allow it to roast, and therefore they are careful not to open the oven and will not come to stoke the fire) "and this one is not cut up." According to Rav Ashi, even if the wind would not bother it (and they would open it and could come to stoke the fire), it is permitted.

Explanation: This is not referring to vessels that are prohibited according to Beis Shamai due to Shevisas Keilim, as if so it would even be prohibited on Wednesday or Thursday! Rather, it is referring to clothing and other things. The reason it is forbidden is because the Nochri will carry them in the public domain, and as Rashi explains it will appear as if he is the messenger of the Jew (to carry them).