MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves three threads to start or one on the weave is liable. But the Sages say, whether at the beginning or at the end its measure is two threads.
HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. 9:7, Notes 168–170 . Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there 9:10 . : “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim .” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there which is “here”; the statement of R. Eliezer in Šabbat is “there”. that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here. it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.
The rabbis of Caesarea asked, what means “one on the weave”? One on top of two, one on top of three. The rabbis here are saying, one on top of two. If there was one large toga, at the start until he weave two threads of it, and at the end the most minute amount. “One who weaves two threads on top of the back, on top of the seam, in the most minute amount is liable. To what may this be compared? To a small belt where he is liable if he wove two threads in the width of three spaces.” And with woolen warp. 16:13 . Woolen warp always requires full three threads of woof to induce liability. it is as at the start, and this cloth even at the end it is weave, and this veil even at the end it is weave.
Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable also is quoted in the Babli, Keritut 17a . Again R. Eliezer declares liable since an entire word was produced. . Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages is not needed; it only is needed for the Sages following R. Joshua who might make a distinction whether or not both letters were written on the Sabbath. who declare not liable.
MISHNAH: He who makes two mashes, [attaching them] to the cross-pieces or to the thrums, of for a fine or coarse sieve, or for a basket, is liable. One who sews two stitches or who tears in order to sew two stitches.
HALAKHAH: 2. “The cross pieces,” the cross pieces. “The thrums,” καίρωμα. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: He who straightens out the sides on the Sabbath is liable because of sewing. He should have said, because of sewing and tying knots.
MISHNAH: He who tears in his rage or about a deceased person, any who spoil are not liable. The measure for one who spoils in order to repair is as for repairing.
HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there 5:7 , Menaḥot 5:3. , “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one,” so one should say also here, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself, but here you caused it to him. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon?
The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq, on Passover one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with a robbed mazzah ? He told them, there in itself it is sinful, but here he committed a sin is a forbidden object in his hand; neither the animal selected for the purification sacrifice nor the garment to be torn are intrinsically forbidden. . Would we say, if one brought a mazzah from a private to the public domain that he could not fulfill his obligation on Passover?
1:9 ( ח ), Notes 218–223. In the Babli ( Sanhedrin 6b , Bava Qamma 94a ) and in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 1:1 (Notes 70–72 ) this is a tannaitic statement. Here, the argument is that a religious obligation, like eating mazzah on Passover, cannot be fulfilled in a sinful way. The Babli insists that not even the regular benedictions before and after eating can be recited if the food is stolen or robbed. It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah . Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes . 10:3 . Usually, the verse is read to mean: “Certainly, the wicked one praises his own desires; he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal! The Tosephta ( Sanhedrin 1:2 ) explains the verse as referring to judges who do not follow the rules. . Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments . 27:34 . . If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.
MISHNAH: The measure of one who bleaches, or who beats flax, who dyes, or who spins, is double the width of a span as identical with the hand-breadth, the width of four thumbs, one sixth of a cubit or 1/48000 of a parasang. . The measure for him who weaves two threads is the length of a span.
HALAKHAH: 4. There, we have stated: “One who brings out wood to cook an easily cooked egg,” and here you are saying so? There one who brings out in order to dye, but here about him who dyes.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable, but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all vivaria are equal. The principle: In every case where it still needs catching, he is not liable, if it does not need catching he is liable.
HALAKHAH: 5 3:1. The references to the Mishnah Beṣah as “there” are almost correct. . Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there 3:1 , an anonymous statement. : “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there 3:1 , an anonymous statement. , “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium 1:5 ) that the only difference between prohibited work on Sabbath and Holiday refers to the preparation of food. It is explained in Beṣah that preparation of meat starts with slaughter; anything preceding this is not exempt from the prohibition of work. ? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered 24a restricts this answer to vivaria. . But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one 24a . The question now arises how to define “small” and “large” for practical application. . Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable 3:1 . Should one say that for large vivaria, taking animals on a holiday is a biblical violation even though this seems to contradict the formulation of the first part Mishnah Beṣah 3:1 . ? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted” 3:1 in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, in contrast to the formulation in Šabbat 13:5. The prohibition is rabbinic since animals in a corral are no longer wild. The next statement translates the criterion into a practical rule. The Babli Beṣah 24a has a different rule. . Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.
“One may slaughter from containers, one may not slaughter from fishermen’s nets or from traps. 3:1 ; Babli Beṣah 24b . This paragraph has no connection with the laws of the Sabbath. It was added to the ms. by the corrector, obviously from a ms. representing a different spelling tradition. ” Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Immi: a net of warp. Samuel [said]. , one may catch with a barrel. Rav said, the sluice of a water canal is permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, those between the plates.
MISHNAH: If a deer enters a house, he who locked the house while it was there is liable. If two together locked, they are not liable. If one alone could not have locked it and two did it, they are liable; but Rebbi Simeon holds them not liable.
HALAKHAH: 6. When she was doing it 4:27 . This paragraph is from Chapter 10, Note 49 . . The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rav Ḥuna said, if one was healthy and one weak. If the sick person locked completely but the healthy one incompletely, the sick one is liable but the healthy one is not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a deer was running normally and he intended to lock the door for himself and he locked for himself and the deer, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he saw a child gurgling in a river 84b , approves of catching the fish but not of intending to catch them. and he intended to bring him up together with a school of fish, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he was digging in a pile and was intending to bring him up together with a hoard of gold coins, it is permitted.
MISHNAH: If one sat in the door opening but did not fill it and a second person came and filled it, the second is liable. If the first one sat in the door and filled it when the second came and sat next to him, even though the first one got up and left, the first is liable and the second not liable. To what can this be compared? To one who locks his house in order to watch it and it turns out that a deer is kept inside.
HALAKHAH: 7. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one feed them? It comes following what we have stated there 24:3 . : “one does not provide water to bees and to pigeons in a dovecot,” for one cannot provide for something which is not prepared. And here it is the same.
Rebbi Shammai asked, may one put a vessel over it? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on the Sabbath one leans it against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one even may cover it with a vessel. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one tie it with a rope? It comes following what Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. In any case where one is permitted to use the sides of an animal one is permitted to tie it; in any case where one is prohibited to use the sides of an animal one is prohibited to tie it.