Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat Chapter 10

הַמַּצְנִיעַ לְזֶרַע לְדוּגְמָא וְלִרְפוּאָה הוֹצִיאוֹ בַשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב עָלָיו בְּכָל שֶׁהוּא. וְכָל אָדָם אֵין חַיָיבִין עָלָיו אֶלָּא כְשִׁעוּרוֹ. חָזַר וְהִכְנִיסוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עָלָיו אֶלָּא כְשִׁיעוּרוֹ: הַמַּצְנִיעַ לְזֶרַע כול׳. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה בָעֵי. מַתְנִיתָא דְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר. אוּמָּן בָּאוּמְנָתוֹ חַיָיב. אָתָא רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. דְּרִבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. לֹא אַתְיָא אֶלָּא לְדֵיגְמָא. שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְפַּיֵיס הַלּוֹקֵחַ. אֲבָל לְזֶרַע וְלִרְפוּאָה אֲפִילוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. הִצְנִיעוֹ זֶה וְהוֹצִיאוֹ זֶה פָּטוּר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר מְחַיֵיב. מַה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בְּשֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ מִדַּעַת הַשִּׁינִי. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּטוּר. אִם בְּשֶׁהוֹצִיאוֹ מִדַּעַת הָרִאשׁוֹן. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָיב. אֶלָּא כֵן אֲנָן קַיָימִין. בִּסְתָם. וְרַבָּנִן אָמְרֵי. חֲזָקָה. מִדַּעַת הַשֵּׁינִי הוֹצִיאוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. חֲזָקָה. מִדַּעַת הָרִאשׁוֹן הוֹצִיאוֹ.

MISHNAH: One who stores as seeds, as sample, or as medicine, if he takes out on the Sabbath he is liable for it in the most minute amount; but every other person is liable only for its quantity. If he brought it back he is liable only for its quantity. HALAKHAH: “One who stores as seeds,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, is the Mishnah Rebbi Jehudah’s? For Rebbi Jehudah said, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi came in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, this comes only for the sample. , because the buyer already was satisfied. But as to seeds and medicines even for the most minute amount he is liable. If one stored it and another took it out, he is not liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar declares him liable. Where do we hold? If he took it out on the second’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is not liable; if he took it out on the first’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is liable. But we must hold when it was not explained. The rabbis say, it is a common presumption 5:5, Note 100 . that he took it out on the second’s initiative; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says that it is a common presumption that he took it out on the first’s initiative.

הַמּוֹצִיא אוֹכְלִין וּנְתָנָן עַל הָאַסְקוּפָּה בֵּין שֶׁחָזַר וְהוֹצִיאָם בֵּין שֶׁהוֹצִיאָם אַחֵר פָּטוּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה מְלַאכְתּוֹ בְּבַת אַחַת. קוּפָּה שֶׁהִיא מְלֵיאָה פֵירוֹת וּנְתוּנָה עַל הָאַסְקוּפָּה הַחִיצוֹנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרוֹב הַפֵּירוֹת מִבַּחוּץ פָּטוּר עַד שֶׁיּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל הַקּוּפָּה: ב׳. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. בְּקוּפָּה שֶׁלְקִישּׁוּאִים וְשֶׁלְדִּילוּעִין הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. שֶׁמִּקְצַת הָאוֹכֶל מִבִּפְנִים וּמִקָצָתוֹ מִבַּחוּץ. אֲבָל בְּקוּפָּה שֶׁהִיא מְלֵיאָה פֵּירוֹת כֵּיוָן שֶֶׁהוֹצִיא מִמֶּנָּה כִגְרוֹגֶרֶת חַיָיב. אָמְרִין. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פְלִיגָא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. סָרוּד שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ מִבִּפְנִים וּמִקָצָתוֹ מִבַּחוּץ. נָטַל מִיכָּן וְנָתַן לְכָאן פָּטוּר. אִם עֲקָרוֹ. עַד שֶׁיַּעֲקוֹר כּוּלּוֹ כָאַחַת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. תִּיפְתָּר בְּפָרוּץ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. קוּפָּה. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. קוּפָּה פְרוּצָה. מַיי כְדוֹן. אֵין לָךְ מִיטַּלְטֵל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְנַעֲשֶׂה כַרְמְלִית אֶלָּא אָדָם בִּלְבַד. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. הוֹצִיא חֲבִילָה מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחָהּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים הָיָה רֹאשָׁהּ לְמַעֲלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כּוּלָּהּ נִיחָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. הוֹצִיא קוֹרָה מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִנִּיחָהּ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים נִכְנַס רֹאשָׁהּ לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אֲחֶרֶת. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כּוּלָּהּ נִיחָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֶבֶן שֶׁהִיא נְתוּנָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה וּרְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִתּוֹכָהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּמֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְתוֹכָהּ חַיָיב. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. קוּפָּה שֶׁהִיא מְלֵיאָה פֵירוֹת וּנְתוּנָה בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה וּרְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה הַמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִתּוֹכָהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אוֹ מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְתוֹכָהּ פָּטוּר. מַה פְלִיג. כָּאן כְּשֶׁהָפְכָהּ עַל צִדָּהּ. וְכָאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא הָפְכָהּ עַל צִידָּהּ. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִיָיה בָעֵי. עָקַר אֶבֶן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים גָּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה וּרְחָבָה אַרְבָּעָה מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לָהּ. כְּמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מִתּוֹכָהּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּמֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לְתוֹכָהּ וּמֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֲחֶרֶת. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין אָמְרִין. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. נָתַן חֲמִשָּׁה עַל גַּבֵּי חֲמִשָּׁה מָה אַתְּ עֲבַד לוֹן. כְּמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכַרְמְלִית. מִכַּרְמְלִית לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד. מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אֲחֶרֶת.

MISHNAH: He who takes out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold, whether afterwards either he or another person took it out, is not liable since he did not complete his action in one piece. If a basket full of produce was put on the outer threshold, even if most of the produce is outside one is not liable until one take out the entire basket. HALAKHAH: 2. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah is about a basket full of green melon and squash, where part of the food is inside and part outside. But a basket full of grain, when he took out in the volume of a dried fig he is liable. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s statement disagrees, as Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A crocheted cloth., R. Joḥanan is quoted directly that the Mishnah holds even for a basket full of mustard seeds. part of which was inside and part outside, if he took from one side and put it down on the other he is not liable. If he lifted it, only if he lifted it entirely at the same time. 8(18) 1975, pp. 1–14, A). The text is a continuation of the preceding paragraph. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if it was broken open. He said to him, but did we not state ‘a basket”; can you say, a basket broken open? What about this? Nothing is moved in the public domain and becomes karmelit except a human, see Chapter 1, Note 73 . The transport from a public domain to karmelit followed from one from the karmelit to the public domain does not create liability. If the basket could be considered karmelit , Ḥizqiah’s statement would be impossible. But since karmelit is a notion applicable only to real estate not readily accessible or to a human’s hand, Ḥizqiah’s restrictive interpretation of the Mishnah cannot be disproved. . Ḥizqiah said, if he took out a bundle from a private to the public domain and before he put it down already its head was higher than ten [hand-breadths], since it does not completely rest in the public domain he is not liable. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, if he took out a beam from a private to the public domain and before he put it down already its head was in another private domain, since it does not completely rest in the public domain he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a stone is in the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide, anybody who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it is liable. Samuel said, a basket full of produce put into the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide, anybody who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it is not liable. Do they disagree? Here, if it was turned on its side, there if it was not turned on its side. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if one moved a stone in the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide, how do you treat it? As one who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it, or from the public domain to a different public domain? The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If one piles five [hand-breadths] on top of five, how do you treat it? As one who moves from a private domain to karmelit , from karmelit to a private domain, from a private domain to another private domain?

הַמּוֹצִיא בֵּין בִּימִינוֹ בֵּין בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ בְּתוֹךְ חֵיקוֹ אוֹ עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ חַיָיב שֶׁכֵּן מַשָּׂא בְנֵי קְהָת. לְאַחַר יָדוֹ בְּרַגְלוֹ וּבְפִיו בְּמַרְפְּקוֹ בְּאָזְנוֹ וּבִשְׂעָרוֹ וּבַאֲפוּנְדָּתוֹ וּפִיהָ לְמַטָּה בֵּין אֲפּוּנְדָּתוֹ לַחֲלוּקוֹ וּבִשְׂפַת חֲלוּקוֹ בְּמִנְעָלוֹ וּבְסַנְדָּלוֹ פָּטוּר שֶׁלֹּא הוֹצִיא כְּדֶרֶךְ הַמּוֹצִיאִין: ג׳. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָעֵי. מֵעַתָּה הוֹצִיא כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ חַיָיב. וְהֵן מַשָּׂא בְנֵי קְהָת. וְכָתוּב וּפְקֻדַּת אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן שֶׁמֶן הַמָּאוֹר וּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים וּמִנְחַת הַתָּמִיד וְשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה. שֶׁמֶן הַמָּאוֹר בִּימִינוֹ. וּקְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. וּמִנְחַת הַתָּמִיד שֶׁל יוֹם תְּלוּיָה בִזְרוֹעוֹ. שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה אֵיכָן הָיָה נָתוּן. רִבִּי אָבוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כְּמִין צְלוֹחִית קְטַנָּה הָיָה לוֹ בָּאֲפוּנְדָּתוֹ. אִין תֹּאמַר שֶׁהָיָה קָטָן. אָמַר רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוֵי. כְּתוּב וּנְשִׂיא נְשִׂיאֵי הַלֵּוֵי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן. דּוּךּ דּוּכָּנִים הָיָה. רִבִּי יְהוּדְה בִּירְבִּי אָמַר. מַרְכָּל הָיָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מַרְכָּל. שֶׁהָיָה מַר עַל הַכֹּל. אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין גְּדוּלָּה בְפַּלַטִין שֵׁלְּמֶלֶךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי לֵוִי. כְּתִיב וְלָבַשׁ הַכֹּהֵן מִדּוֹ בַד.. וְהֵרִים אֶת הַדֶּשֶׁן. אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין גְּדוּלָּה בְפַּלַטִין שֵׁלְּמֶלֶךְ.

MISHNAH: One who takes out either with his right hand, or with his left hand, or in his bosom, or on his shoulder, is liable since this was the carrying of the Kehatites. 7:9 . . On the back of his hand, on his foot, in his mouth, on his elbow, in his ear, or in his hair, or in his money belt, - ae , f. whose opening is downward, between his belt and his garment, or in the seam of his garment, in his shoe, or in his sandal, he is not liable since he did not take out in the way of takers-out. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose asked: This implies that if somebody took out the volume of a dried fig on his shoulder, he is liable. Is that the carrying of the Kehatites? But it is written. 4:16 . Since there it is not reported that the other Kehatites would carry his charges, it follows that he himself had to carry everything during their wanderings in the desert. Cf. Rashi 92a on the Mishnah. , the office of Eleazar, Aaron’s son, the priest: The oil for illumination, the spice incense, the permanent flour offering . 6:12–16 . , and the anointing oil . The oil for illumination in his right hand, the spice incense in his left hand, the permanent flour offering of that day hanging on his arm. Where was the anointing oil? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: a small flask he had on his money belt. If you say that he was unimportant, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written. 3:32 . : The prince of the princes of the Levites, Eleazar, Aaron’s son . A duke m . As in English, the Hebrew form is derived from the root, not the nominative. of dukes he was. The great Rebbi Jehudah said, he was the executive officer. “And why was his title Markol ? Because he had the say about everything. 2:15 . ” Only there is no greatness in the king’s palace. Rebbi Levi said, it is written. 6:3 . , the priest shall dress in linen garment … and remove the ashes , only there is no greatness in the king’s palace.

הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין לְהוֹצִיא לְפָנָיו וּבָא לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו פָּטוּר. לְאַחֲרָיו וּבָא לוֹ לְפָנָיו חַיָיב. בֶּאֱמֶת הָאִשָּׁה הַחוֹגֶרֶת בַּסִּינָר בֵּין מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּבֵין מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ חַיֶיבֶת שֶׁכֵּן רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת חוֹזֵר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף בִּמְקַבְּלֵי פִיטְקִין כֵּן: ד׳. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. רִבִּי [שִׁמְעוֹן] הַשְּׁזוּרִי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא חַיָיב. עַל מַה נֶּחְלָקוּ. עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשֵּׁם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. שֶׁרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּיב חַטָּאת וְרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. בִּשְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת נֶחְלְקוּ. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. בְּשֵׁם אֶחָד נֶחְלְקוּ. וְכָאן שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת הֵן וְהוּא פָטוּר. לְאַחֲרָיו וּבָא לוֹ לְפָנָיו חַיָיב. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. בְּשֵׁם אֶחָד נֶחְלְקוּ. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. בִּשְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. וְכָאן בְּשֵׁם אֶחָד הוּא וְהוּא חַיָיב. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. תַּנָּיִין אִינּוּן. מָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן. חַיָיב. אוּף הָכָא. חַיָיב. מָאן דְּאָמַר תַּמָּן. פָּטוּר. אוּף הָכָא. פָּטוּר. בֶּאֱמֶת. אָמַר רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנוּ בֶּאֱמֶת הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי.

MISHNAH: One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable. In truth a woman who ties to her sinar 1:2, Note 115 . According to Rashi, leather underpants; according to Maimonides a sash covering front and back. In modern Hebrew “apron”, following Maimonides. whether in front or back is liable since it is apt to move. Rebbi Jehudah says, the same holds for messengers, Greek πιττάκιον “note delivered from one government office to another; ticket, label, patch.” . HALAKHAH: There, we have stated 4:3 . A purification offering is possible only for the awareness that an inadvertent sin punishable with extirpation has been committed. In the interpretation of R. Simeon fron Shezur and R. Simeon (ben Yoḥai), for R. Eliezer, the awareness of a sin generates the liability, for R. Joshua only the awareness of the exact circumstances of the transgression causes liability, even if the category of the sin is not in doubt. : “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur and Rebbi Simeon say, they did not disagree about anything which falls under the same appellation that he is liable. Where did they disagree? About something which is because of two appellations, where Rebbi Eliezer holds him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua holds him not liable.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, but not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable disagreed about two appellations , it is clear that R. Eliezer declares liable but not R. Joshua. But not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation . Since the distinction is made only by two authors it is clear that there is an assumption that there is an opposing opinion which holds that R. Joshua frees from liability in any case where there is a doubt even if it is only in the way an intention was executed. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable according to both interpretations of R. Joshua (whose opinion is followed in general against R. Eliezer.) . “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. But following him who said two appellations? Here it is one appellation and he is liable there is a problem to explain this following R. Joshua. But following him who said two appellations it is obvious that this Mishnah cannot follow R. Joshua. Here it is one appellation and he is liable , according to everybody in the interpretation of RR. Simeon from Shezur and R. Simeon. . Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: it is a case of Tannaim. He who says there “liable”, also here “liable”; he who says there “not liable”, also here “not liable”. “In truth.” Rebbi Eliezer said, any place where “in truth” was stated it is practice going back to Moses on Sinai 2:2 Note 36 , Terumot 2:1 Note 16 , the tradent is R. Eleazar. .

הַמּוֹצִיא כִכָּר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים חַיָיב. הוֹצִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם פְּטוּרִין. לֹא יָכוֹל אֶחָד לְהוֹצִיאוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּ הוּ שְׁנַיִם חַיָיבִין. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. הַמּוֹצִיא אוֹכְלִין פָּחוֹת מִכַּשִּׁיעוּר בַּכֶּלִי פָּטוּר אַף עַל הַכְּלִי שֶׁהַכְּלִי טְפֵילָה לוֹ. אֶת הַחַי בַּמִּיטָּה פָּטוּר אַף עַל הַמִּיטָּה שֶׁהַמִּיטָּה טְפֵילָה לוֹ. אֶת הַמֵּת בַּמִּיטָּה חַיָיב וְכֵן כַּזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת וְכַזַּיִת מִן הַנְּבֵילָה וְכָעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ חַיָיבִין. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר: ה׳. בַּעֲשׂוֹתָהּ. הַיָּחִיד שֶׁעָשָׂה חַיָיב. שְׁנַיִם שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁעָשׂוּ פְטוּרִין. רִבִּי יוֹשׁוּעַ דְּרוֹמַיָּא אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. קְנֵי גִירְדִּי. רִבִּי פוֹטֵר. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַיֵיב. אָמַר לוֹ רִבִּי. כָּךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי מֵאָבִיךָ. אָמַר לוֹ. שִׁימַּשְׁתִּי אֶת אַבָּא עוֹמַדּוֹת מַה שֶׁלֹּא שִׁימַּשְׁתּוֹ יְשִׁיבוֹת. וְרִבִּי תַלְמִידֵיהּ דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר יוֹחַי דַּהֲוֵי. לֹא תַלְמִידֵיהּ דְרִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר קוֹדְשַׁי הֲוָה. אֶלָּא כָּךְ אָמַר לֵיהּ. שִׁמַּשְׁתִּי אֶת אַבָּא עוֹמְדוּת מַה שֶׁלֹּא שִׁמַּשְׁתָּ אֶת רַבָּךְ יְשִׁיבוּת. כְּשֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִכְנַס לְבֵית הַוַועַד הָיוּ פָנָיו שֶׁלְרִבִּי מַקְדִּירוֹת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אָבוֹי. וְיֵאוּת. זֶה אֲרִי בֶן אֲרִי. אֲבָל אַתָּה אֲרִי בֶן שׁוּעַל. מִן דְּמָךְ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שְׁלַח רִבִּי תְבַע בְּאִיתְּתֵיהּ. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ. כְּלִי שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ קוֹדֶשׁ יִשְׁתַּמֶּשׁ בּוֹ חוֹל. ו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בִּצְרִיכִין לְכֶילְיָין. כְּגוֹן אִילֵּין תּוּתַּיְָיא. אֲבָל אִם אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְכֶילְיָין חַיָיב אַף עַל הַכְּלִי. אֶת הַחַי בַּמִּיטָָּה פָּטוּר אַף עַל הַמִּיטָָּה. דְּחַיָיא טָעִין גַּרְמֵיהּ. אֶת הַמֵּת בַּמִּיטָּה חַיָיב. דִּבְרֵי הְכֹּל. לֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי. אַף רֵיחַ רַע כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וְאָמַר רִבִּי אִילָא. אַף רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה בָהּ. וּמוֹדֶה רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּאִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָיָיה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. תִּיפְתָּר בְּמֵת גּוֹי וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רֵיחַ רַע וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לְכַלְבּוֹ. תַּנֵּי. חֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַמֵּת וַחֲצִי זַיִת מִן הַנְּבֵילָה וּפַחוּת מִכַּעֲדָשָׁה מִן הַשֶׁרֶץ חַיָיב. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר. מַה טַעַמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. כְּבָר נִתְמָעֲטָה הָטּוּמְאָה. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן. בָּהַהִיא דְרִבִּי יוּדָן. תִּיפְתָּר בְּמֵת גּוֹי וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רֵיחַ רַע וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לְכַלְבּוֹ.

MISHNAH: He who takes out foodstuffs less than a measure in a vessel is not liable even for the vessel since the vessel is an accessory to it, for a living person on a bier he is not liable even for the bier since the vessel is an accessory to him. For a dead person on a bier he is liable, and so for the volume of an olive from a dead person, or the volume of an olive from a carcass, or of a lentil from a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. He who takes out a loaf into the public domain is liable. If two together took it out they are not liable. If one alone is unable to take it out and two took it out they are liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares them not liable. HALAKHAH: When she was doing it . 4:27 , establishing the qualifications for a purification offering. The feminine refers to נֶפֶשׁ “a person”. The singular both of verb and suffix shows that the verse refers to a single person and a single action. Babli 93a ; cf. Horaiot 1:1 Note 8 , Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parashah 7(4 , 9 ). The paragraph refers to Mishnah 6 which frees from liability two or more people engaged in transporting on the Sabbath. . The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner said before Rebbi (Yasa) [Yose] in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A weaver’s beam, Rebbi declares not liable, but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, he is liable. Rebbi said to him, so I heard from your father. He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served him sitting. But was Rebbi the student of Rebbi Simeon (bar) [ben] Yoḥai? Was he not the student of Rebbi Jacob bar (Qodshai) [Qorshai] 10:1 (37b line l. 62) the scribe first wrote קורשיי but then corrected it to קודשיי. In the Babli, Horaiot 13b , the early prints and the Munich ms. read קדשי (cf. Diqduqe Soferim , Abodah sarah etc. Horaiot p. כג, Note ח֜ .) R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon indicates that from the incidental remarks of his father he learned more than Rebbi did in his formal studies. ? But so he must have said to him, He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served your teacher sitting. When Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon came to the house of assembly, Rebbi’s face darkened. His father told him, it is correct so, for he is a lion son of a lion, but you are a lion son of a jackal meṣi aˋ 84b. . When (Rebbi Eleazar) [he] died, Rebbi sent to ask his wife in marriage. She said to him, a vessel which was used in holiness should be used in a profane way? 6. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, what you are saying is about when the vessel is needed, as for mulberries. But if they do not need their vessel he is liable also for the vessel. “A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself 103a ; Yoma 66b . . “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

הַנּוֹטֵל צִפָּרְנָיו זוֹ בָזוֹ אוֹ בְשִׁינָּיו וְכֵן שְׂעָרוֹ וְכֵן שְׂפָמוֹ וְכֵן זְקָנוֹ וְכֵן הַגּוֹדֶלֶת וְכֵן הַכּוֹחֶלֶת וְכֵן הַפּוֹקֶסֶת רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵיב חַטָּאת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִין מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת. הַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵעָצִיץ נָקוּב חַיָיב וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב פָּטוּר. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה: ז׳. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָה. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁנְּטָלָן הוּא. אֲבָל אִם נְטָלָן אַחֵר מָאוּסִין הֵן. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רִבִּי אָחָא רִבִּי נָחוּם בְּשֵׁם רַב. לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ חַיָיב עַד שֶׁיִּטְלֶנּוּ בִקְרֶסְטֶל. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. הַגּוֹדֶלֶת חַיֶיבֶת מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. וְאַתְיא כְּהַהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי בְּנָיָיה. בְּאַתְרִין צְוָוחִין לַקַּלְעִיתָא בָּנִיָיתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. לֹא מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְלָא מִשׁוּם אֲרִיג. מִחְלְפָא שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָא. דְּתַמָּן אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָקּוֹלֵעַ שָׁלֹשׁ נֵימִין בָּאָדָם חַיָיב מִשׁוּם אֲרִיג. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. לֹא טְוִוי וַאֲרִיג הוּא. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר הָכֵין. כָּאן בִּמְרוּבָּה וְכָאן בִּמְמוּעַט. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בָּאָדָם. אֲבָל בִּבְהֵמָה טָהוֹר. כְּהְדְא דְתַנֵּי. הָעוֹשֶׂה פַסִיקִיָּא לִילָבֵב לִישַּׁפֵּר לְהַדֵּיק בָּהּ אֶת הַמַּרְצוּפִין לִתְלוֹתָהּ בְּצַוָּאר בְּהֵמָה. טָהוֹר. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אֲמַר. בִּפְשׁוּטִין. אֲבָל בִּמְקוּפָּלִין בֵּין בָּאָדָם בֵּין בִּבְהֵמָה טָמֵא. הַכּוֹחֶלֶת חַיֶיבֶת מִשּׁוּם כּוֹתֶבֶת. הַפּוֹקֶסֶת חַיֶיבֶת מִשּׁוּם צוֹבַעַת. יִצְחָק בַּר אוֹרִיוֹן אָמַר. מַה פְלִיגִין. בְּשֶׁלֹּא תָלַשׁ כְּנֶגֶד הַנֶּקֶב. אֲבָל אִם תָּלַשׁ מִכְּנֶגֶד הַנֶּקֶב אַף רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מוֹדֶה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. הָיָה כוּלּוֹ בָאָרֶץ וְנֶקֶב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ. אַשְׁכְּחַת אֲמַר. מַה דִצְרִיכָא לְרִבִּי יִרְמְיָה פְּשִׁיטָא לְיִצְחָק בֶּן אוֹרִיוֹן. אִילֵּין אִינִּין. וְהָא אִית לָךְ חוֹרָנִיָין. עָצִיץ נָקוּב מְקַדֵּשׁ בַּכֶּרֶם וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ בַּכֶּרֶם. עָצִיץ נָקוּב אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב מַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים. הַתּוֹלֵשׁ מֵעָצִיץ נָקוּב חַיָיב וּמִשֶּׁאֵינוֹ נָקוּב פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יוּסֵה אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה מַטֵּי בָהּ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. הַתּוֹרָה רִיבָת בְּטָהֳרַת זְרָעִים. מַה טַעַם. וְכִי יִפֹּל מִנִּבְלָתָם עַל כָּל זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ וגו׳.

MISHNAH: He who takes off his fingernails one with the other or with his teeth, and similarly his hair, or his mustache, or his beard, and similarly the woman who braids, or who puts on kohl , or puts on make-up, Rebbi Eliezer declares liable for a purification sacrifice but the Sages say because of Sabbath rest. One who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is liable, with no hole is not liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable in either case. HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Where do they differ? If he himself took them but if another took them they are disgusting. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Naḥum in the name of Rav, he is never liable unless he take them with a grooming knife p. 137, Note 31, supported by the reading of A. In the Babli, the word appears as גנוסטר. In contrast to the Yerushalmi which requires a professional tool, the Babli declares liability for the use of any tool, 94b. . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: The one who braids is liable because of building. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Banaya: At our place they call builder one who is plaiting61a , explaining Gen . 2:22 , not that God built up the rib, but that He braided the side (the female side of the human created as Siamese twin, Gen . 1:27 .) . Rebbi Zeˋira said, would it not be reasonable that it should be because of weaving? The argument of Rebbi Zeˋira is inverted, for there said Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one who plaits three hairs of a human is liable because of weaving; Rebbi Zeˋira said, is it not spinning rather than weaving? And here he says so! There if they are few, here for many. That is what you say about a human, but for an animal it is pure, as it was stated: One who makes a belt, - ae , f .. under the heart, to beautify, or to fasten the bags, - ii , n .. , to hang it around an animal’s neck, is pure 4:14 . . That is, for simple ones. But if the are folded, whether for human or for animal they are impure. The one who applies kohl is liable because of writing; amounts to writing the letter ס or the paleo-Hebrew ˋ ayin , o. the one who puts on make-up is liable because of dyeing. Isaac bar Orion said, where do they disagree 7:6, Notes 80–83 . ? If he did not pluck it off over the hole. But if he plucked it off over the hole also Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If everything was in the Land but the hole outside the Land? It turns out that you may say what was questionable for Rebbi Jeremiah was obvious for Isaac bar Orion. These are it which has become unintelligible. The text referred to reads in full: It was stated: “the only difference between a flower pot without a hole and one with a hole regards preparation for impurity.” That is for Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis there are others. ( Babli 95a/b ,) . But there are others! “A flower pot with a hole sanctifies in a vineyard, one without a hole does not sanctify 7:8 in the independent Mishnah mss., not in the Mishnah of the Yerushalmi. Growth of produce other than vines in a vineyard makes everything forbidden for usufruct; Deut . 22:9 . .” “A flower pot with a hole cannot prepare plants, one without a hole prepares. 2:10 . Food can become impure only after the harvest and only after having been wetted, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 141 . A plant in a pot with hole is a plant in the earth and nothing can make it prepared for impurity at this stage. A plant in a pot without hole is already harvested since it can be plucked on the Sabbath without fear of prosecution; if it is watered, it becomes subject to possible impurity. ” “He who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is liable, from one without a hole he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose referred to it as anonymous statement, Rebbi Ḥanania quoted it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaacˋ serot 5:2 (Note 46): Rebbi La. : The Torah extended the purity of growing plants. 11:37 . This explains why R. Simeon agrees with the rabbis that a flower pot with hole is immune from impurity and is not comparable to a pot with hole: The verse insists that anything sown in any way acceptable in agriculture is pure. The main point of the argument is lost in the quote here (which again shows that its origin is in Kilaim ). The “etc.” hides the final statement of the verse: it is pure. The quote of the verse also is truncated in the Babli, 95b . : If any of their cadavers falls on any sown seed apt to be sown , etc.