Shabbat Chapter 7

MISHNAH: A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath. Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for one purification sacrifice only. But one who knows the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single Sabbath; and one who knows that it is the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single work. One who performs many works similar to one work is obligated only for one purification sacrifice.

HALAKHAH: “A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath,” etc. What means “comprehensive”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than the principle of the Sabbatical year, since the Sabbath falls on everything but the Sabbatical year falls on agricultural work in the Land only. There we have stated 7:1. : “A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbatical year.” What means “a comprehensive principle”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than tithes, for the Sabbatical year falls on human food and animal feed but tithes apply to human food only 1:1: “anything that is food, is guarded, and grows from the earth, is subject to tithes.” Babli 68a . G everywhere reads not מַכָנִיסוֹ “what one stores” but מִיכָּנָסוֹ “what he had stored” making the obligation of tithes dependent on the action of the individual. . Bar Qappara stated: a comprehensive principle they said about tithes 1:1 which is stated as “a principle” is “a comprehensive principle” for bar Qappara. Babli 68a . . What means “a comprehensive principle”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than peah. for tithes apply both to food that is stored and to food which is not stored, but peah applies only to food used as stored staple 1:4: “They established a principle for peah : Everything that is food, is treated as private property, grows from the earth, is harvested at one time, and is stored, is subject to peah .” Peah is the corner of the field which is reserved for the poor and may not be taken by the farmer. . Some want to say, what means “comprehensive”? From here that there are derivatives.

We have stated: “Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” They stated in the House of Rebbi: Anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath 1(7). . Rebbi Eleazar follows our Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan follows what was stated in the House of Rebbi. But Rebbi Eliezer said, “anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath. 3:10 (quoted later in the Chapter, Note 48) he states that one who performs many works of the same category on many Sabbaths in one oblivion is liable for separate sacrifices for each occasion; opposed by R. Aqiba. This refers to the second case trated in Mishnah 1. ” Therefore if he does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath is he not liable? Since Rav stated our Mishnah and explained it: who is the one who does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath? A child who was taken prisoner among the Gentiles. This implies that both versions are the same. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Therefore (if he does not) [if he did] know and forgot he is liable. Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that both versions are the same. They asked before Rebbi Yasa’s son: What did you hear from your father about Rebbi Yose? He said, following Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥizqiah told them, he did not say so. But Rebbi Simon bar Zavda was simply with Rebbi Yose’s son and heard from him following Rebbi Eliezer.

From where these things? He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one , to obligate for each one separately; and did these , to obligate for all of them together. 4:2 reads: If a person should sin inadvertently against any of the prohibitions of the Eternal and did one of these . The complicated structure of this verse is analyzed in detail in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parshata 1, Pereq 1. The analysis of the Yerushalmi is attributed in the Babli 103b to R. Yose ben Ḥanina, mentioned at the end of the preceding Paragraph. Echoes of the discussion in Sifra are in the Babli 70a . The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one , we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these , all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated? . Of these , to obligate for derivatives. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken 6:1 , it cannot be emended. It seems that Rav (not Rebbi) Zakkai swam crossing the rivers on his way to Palestine. ; he is liable only once Chapter 7:11 Note 256 . Worshipping strange deities in the way prescribed for Jewish worship in all its forms is one and the same offense. But worshipping strange deities in their own characteristic ways is a separate offense for each deity. . Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these ; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one . 4:2 could be interpreted to refer only to idolatry the answer seems to be in the negative, since for R. Zakkai there are only single offenses ( one ) and no general category ( these ) whereas for R. Joḥanan the situation is the inverse, in contrast to the Sabbath when liability for a sacrifice can be triggered either by a single action ( one ) or by a multiplicity of different actions all falling under the same category ( these ). . But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them 7:11 Notes 252 ff. . Like prostration to obligate for partial action. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written. 4:3 . , if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull . This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat Mishnah 2:8 . . They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives. to be burned on the altar. There are no extensions or derivatives. . For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse. 18 . In addition in Lev . 20:18 the sex act is defined at touching of sexual organs; the only actions triggering the liability for a sacrifice are explicitly spelled out in the verses; there are no categories nor derivatives. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:5 (Notes 72–85 ). . The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal , to obligate for each single Sabbath. 23:3 . Since the attempt to derive the rules of the Mishnah from Lev . 4:2 ran into difficulties, they propose a direct interpretation of verses referring to the Sabbath only. . Rebbi Ila said, it is written. 35:2 . The Sabbath is mentioned in the singular. : Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death , not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate 3:3 Note 66 ). Less than minimum amounts eaten at different times do not trigger liability. On the other hand, once liability was triggered within one period of oblivion, it automatically covers all other offenses of the same kind during the same period of oblivion. The question is now asked whether if an inadvertent desecration of the Sabbath triggered the obligation of a sacrifice and the perpetrator did not become aware of his offense before committing the same also on another Sabbath, he is liable for only one or for several sacrifices? ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.

An adult who was taken captive among Gentiles. Rav and Samuel, one said, he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, but the other said, he keeps the Sabbath and counts six. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, five and keeps the Sabbath, four and keeps the Sabbath, three and keeps the Sabbath, two and keeps the Sabbath, one and keeps the Sabbath. Rebbi Mana said, if he was abducted on Tuesday he makes the Sabbath (great was his power) [profane]. At the second period he makes the Sabbath (if not to wonder) [only the eighth]. Therefore he should worry about all days, as by the following: If he preliminarily married a woman in Elam. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he worries about all women. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not worry about all women. There he has a fix, he may marry a convert, he may marry a freedwoman. Here what do you have? There, they are saying, he worries about all days and works for the necessities of life § 15. .

There, we have stated 3:10 . : “Rebbi Aqiba said, I asked Rebbi Eliezer: If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one separately? He told him, he is liable for each occurrence separately by an argument de minore ad majus . Since for the menstruating woman, which does not entail many ramifications nor many purification sacrifices, he is liable for each single occurrence 3:7 , a statement of Rabban Gamliel and R. Joshua. A person having 5 wives slept with each of them when she was impure in one period of oblivion is liable for 5 sacrifices. , for the Sabbath which has many ramifications and many purification sacrifices it is only logical that he be liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the menstruating woman where there are two warnings, for he is warned about a menstruating woman and the menstruating woman is warned about him. 18:19 . The prohibition for the female is implied by the fact that punishment for an infraction is equal for male and female, Lev . 20:18 . There can be no punishment unless there is a prohibition. , what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one warning? He said to me, one who has intercourse with an underage girl shall prove it, where there is only one warning, but he is liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the underage girl who even though there is no warning now there will be one in the future, what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one [warning] whether now or in the future. He told me, one having intercourse with an animal shall prove it. I said to him, the animal is like the Sabbath.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. About this we have stated “many works”. He is not liable because of Sabbaths. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. About this we have stated “many Sabbaths”. He is not liable because of the works. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not concede to him? Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that he did not concede to him. (It was) [Now] Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not (instruct) [concede to] him? Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, a baraita implies that he did not concede to him, as it was stated 1(7). , “ ‘I know that it is the Sabbath, I know that this is work. But I do not know that this is work for which one becomes liable to extirpation.’ If he did work of several categories he is liable for every single work. If he did work of one category only, he is liable for every episode of oblivion if there were many oblivions, but if all was one oblivion he is liable only once.” Since he did not quote this as an objection it implies that he did not concede to him disagrees with him, he must have known that the latter disagrees. (In Sifra the entire theory is attributed to R. Yose of the school of R. Aqiba, two generations after R. Eliezer). G ends here. .

Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. Therefore, in the case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work even Rebbi Eliezer should agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he is liable only once., that he did not realize that it was Sabbath, there should be only one liability. . But then Rebbi Aqiba should have objected, is there not the case of intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work, where there are many ramifications or many purification sacrifices and you are instructing that he is liable only once! Since he did not object in this way it implies that one case is like the other case.

Now Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. Therefore about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Rebbi Eliezer that he is liable for every single one. Then Rebbi Eliezer should have objected to him, is there not error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the works where there are not many ramifications and many purification sacrifices and you are agreeing with me that he is liable for every single one. Since he did not object in this way it implies that one case is like the other case.

Now Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. Do you not catch him because of the error regarding the Sabbath 16a . ? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: He asked him two questions. About intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work that he be liable for every single one. In case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding works does one treat the derivatives like that main item. ? Rebbi Jacob ben Dasai said, and in the House of Rebbi it was stated so: “If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or once for each single one?” Many works of the same category, this describes intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. Many Sabbaths all of the same category, this describes error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work.

Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding works. Can anybody become liable intentionally? You superimpose the error regarding works over the intent regarding the Sabbath. Similarly, in case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work you superimpose the error regarding the Sabbath over the intent regarding works to hold him liable for each single occurrence. Does Rebbi Eliezer not accept one , to obligate for each one separately. 4:2 reads: If a person should sin inadvertently against any of the prohibitions of the Eternal and did one of these . The complicated structure of this verse is analyzed in detail in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parshata 1, Pereq 1. The analysis of the Yerushalmi is attributed in the Babli 103b to R. Yose ben Ḥanina, mentioned at the end of the preceding Paragraph. Echoes of the discussion in Sifra are in the Babli 70a . The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one , we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these , all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated? , etc., is missing since the quote of part of the baraita from Sifra is intended to refer to all its parts. ? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: An adult who was abducted among Gentiles is liable for each single one.

What is the difference between intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works or in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional about works? Rebbi Yose said, why intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works makes him liable for each single one? For if you tell him that this is [forbidden] work, he stops doing it and does other works. Why in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional about works makes him liable only once? For if you tell him that it is a Sabbath, he stops immediately. What if he is in error in both respects? Rav Hamnuna said, he is liable only once. Rebbi Zeˋira said to him, is that not a case a fortiori ? If he is intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works, is he not liable for each single one? Because there was added for him the error regarding work on the Sabbath; the error about works is lost 62a , Ševuot 19a , 26a , Keritut 3b ). ?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If one harvested half the volume of a dried fig on this Sabbath, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig on another Sabbath, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Is it possible to say Sabbaths divide, Sabbaths combine? Do not trays divide and trays combine 3 :9where R. Joshua holds that somebody who illegally eats from the meat of one sacrifice prepared in five different dishes is liable for a separate purification sacrifice for every dish of which he ate the volume of an olive. On the other hand, if of two separate dishes he illegally ate half the volume of an olive each, he is liable for one sacrifice. This is a case where dishes both combine for liability and divide liabilities. ? He answered, I do not know the reason for the tray. Is this not a baraita ? If he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rebbi Azariah said before Rebbi Mana, explain it by intent. He said to him, is this not an argument a fortiori ? Since intent neither divides nor combines, error which does not divide a fortiori does not combine.

Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is not what he said but he harvested half the volume of a dried fig in the morning, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig in the evening, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not address this, he said something similar. If one ate half the volume of an olive being aware of the Sanctuary but oblivious of impurity and half the volume of an olive being oblivious of the Sanctuary but aware of impurity; do the oblivions combine 2:1 Note 51 . ?

One understands Sabbath since weekdays come in the meantime. What may you say about the menstruating woman, in particular the last argument between R. Aqiba and R. Eliezer where R. Eliezer asserts that even with underage girls every forbidden sex act creates a new liability. It is agreed that every single Sabbath creates new liabilities since the weekdays in between create awareness of days that are not Sabbaths. Similarly one may argue that having sex with the same woman in different menstrual periods creates separate liabilities since while the male may be oblivious continuously, the woman certainly knows the differences between the periods and she is bound by the law as he is. But an underage girl is not obligated by any law; therefore intercourse with her during different periods in one period of oblivion should create only a single liability. ? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, explain it about an underage menstruating woman where days of purity came in the meantime even if he does not know when his wife is impure is separately liable for intercourse in different periods which are separated by lengthy intervals of purity. Babli Keritut 17a . . Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, so did he ask him: If he came to one menstruating woman five times in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one? He answered him, he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is [not] so. Rebbi Mana asked the following: Did not Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once 23 ? Then here also he should be liable only once. Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is not so. Like the rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Nisa: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, and all that is derived from it as all practice follows Rebbi Eliezer.

MISHNAH: There are 39 categories of work. He who ploughs, who sows, who harvests, who binds into sheaves, who threshes, and who winnows, who selects, who grinds, and who sifts, who makes dough, and who bakes. 35:1–3 , one concludes that the prohibited actions are those needed for building the Tabernacle and the Service performed in it. The first series (11 categories) describes actions needed to prepare cereal offerings and the shew-bread. The second series (13 categories) catalogues the making of the priestly garments. . He who shears wool, who bleaches it, who cards it, who dyes it, who spins it, who prepares the loom, who ties two threads as warp, who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties. Also who sews two stitches, who tears in order to sew two stitches. He who catches a deer, who slaughters it, who skins it, who salts it, who rubs it clean, who tans it, who cuts it, who writes two letters, and who erases in order to write two letters. He who builds, and who tears down, who extinguishes fire, and who lights fire, and who hits with a hammer, and who transports from one domain to another; these are the 39 categories of work.

HALAKHAH: “The categories of work are 39.” From where that the categories of work are from the Torah? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the thirty-nine occurrences of מלאכה in the Torah. They asked before Rebbi Aḥa, everywhere where מלאכות is written it should count for two! Rebbi Ashian said, Rebbi Aḥa checked by eye the entire Torah and did not find this word written. The following is necessary: He came into the house to do his work . 39:11 . It must be counted even though the word is in suffixed form and does not refer to the Sabbath. is with them. God completed on the Seventh Day His work which He did . 2:2 . , is with them. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Six days you shall eat unleavened bread and on the seventh day you should not do work . 16:8 , the last occurrence of the word in the Torah. comes to complete the 39 “works” written in the Torah.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani: Corresponding to the 39 times “service” and “work” is written about the Tabernacle. and Num . Here again for the word עֲבוֹדָה the base form and the suffixed forms are counted, but the construct state עֲבוֹדַת is not. .

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it does not say “this is the word” but these are the words . 35:1 , the introductory paragraph which indicates that the Sabbath prohibitions may not be violated in building the Tabernacle, and which therefore forms the basis of the list of the 39 categories from an analysis of the activities needed to build the Tabernacle and to serve in it. ” “Word”, “words,” “words”. From here about categories and derivatives published by L. Ginzberg in שרידי הירושלמי p. 316 the reading is מכאן לאבות מלאכות “from here for categories”, the plural only indicates that there are different categories of work on the Sabbath.) . Rebbi Ḥanina of Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. Alef is one, Lamed is 30, He is five, “word” is one, “words” are two (numerical value if each letter is used as a numeral in the Alexandrian system) of אלה is 36; one has somehow to find another 3 to reach the traditional number of 39. . From here the 39 “works” written in the Torah. The rabbis of Caesarea say, at its place nothing is missing, א is one, ל 30 , ח 8. The rabbis never hesitate to identify ה and 7:6 Note 113 , Maˋaser Šeni 5:3, Soṭah 8:4 Note 179 . In all other occurrences of substitution of ח for ה one obtains a word which makes sense; this cannot be said here ( Babli Berakhot 32a ). ח.

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish worked on this Chapter for three and one half years. They produced 39 derivatives for each single one. Where they found a way to include it they included it. Where they did not find a way to include it they classified it as “who hits with a hammer.”

The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya worked on this Chapter for six months. They produced six derivatives for each single one. The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya follow the method of their father, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated is in the Babli 73b , Tosephta 9:17 . : “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all [liable] because of harvesting.” Rebbi Sidor said, Jehudah the son of the rabbi is a rather short Mishnah Tractate of only 6 Chapters accompanied by Tosephta of 3 Chapters. studied Makhširin for six months. In the end there came a student of Rebbi Simai and asked him, but he could not answer. He said, it is recognizable that this one never passed by the gate of the Torah.

“The categories of work are 39.” For which purpose? For if he did all of them in one oblivion he is liable only once.

6:1 but the origin is here as will be seen in the commentary. The introductory statement is from earlier in the Chapter, Notes 28–30. The text in braces was copied from there and has no place here. Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work . 20:8. , principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places . 35:3. , a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [ Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli 70a appears as R. Nathan.) Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qamma 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menaḥem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים להתפתחות של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original tannaitic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra , Sifry ) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta , Sifra , Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions. (A different interpretation of the verses is in the Babli 70a). . Also here: Do not worship them . 20:4. , a principle. Do not prostrate yourself . 20:4. , a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [ Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli 70a appears as R. Nathan.) Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qamma 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menaḥem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים להתפתחות של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original tannaitic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra , Sifry ) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta , Sifra , Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions. (A different interpretation of the verses is in the Babli 70a). . He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail 6b, Bava qamma 85a, Menaḥot 55b, Niddah 33a. . He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power . 34:14. ? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned . 22:19. For this argument the reference to Elohim is taken to apply to idols. The masoretic vocalization applying a definite article must refer to God in His function as Judge, God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world, to Whom propitiatory sacrifices are forbidden; sacrifices are legitimate only if offered to YHWH, God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace. This is the interpretation adopted at the end of the paragraph. In all of Lev . and Num ., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim. . He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not], needed for an understanding of the text. infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle had been mentioned after worshipping , the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”, therefore the 9 principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle. . Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned . 22:19 . For this argument the reference to Elohim is taken to apply to idols. The masoretic vocalization applying a definite article must refer to God in His function as Judge, God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world, to Whom propitiatory sacrifices are forbidden; sacrifices are legitimate only if offered to YHWH, God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace. This is the interpretation adopted at the end of the paragraph. In all of Lev . and Num ., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim. . Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath 6b , this is a Tannaitic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael , Wayyaqhel . . What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations , in all your settlements . 35:29 . . Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity,. 35:29 , not on Ex. 22:19 , the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9 rule. and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs.

This implies that one item which was mentioned separately by necessity does not divide. If it was mentioned not by necessity it divides. If two items were mentioned separately, do they divide? Let us hear from the following: From where that he transgresses a prohibition whoever brings to the altar meat of a purification offering, or meat of a reparation offering, or meat of most holy offerings, or meat from simply holy offerings. Chapter 3 . , or the remainder of the ˋ Omer . 23:10 . or the Two Breads. 23:17 . , or the Shew Bread. 24:5–9 . , or remainders of cereal offerings. Chapter 2 . , or leaven, or date honey. 26:2 . ? The verse says. 2:12 . , for any leaven or any date honey you may not turn into smoke as a fire gift to the Eternal . Therefore anything that had been given to the fire is under “do not turn into smoke”.

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp. 20:22 ). The ramp was physically separated from the altar. ? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar . 2:12 : As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent . , this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says. 2:12 : As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent . , on the altar they shall not be lifted . I could think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says. 2:12 : As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent . , as aroma smell , I was saying this only as an act of worship 1(11 ). . (He retorted,) quoted. them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. Because it is written them . If them had not been written, it would instruct. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not) separate. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct. .

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp. 20:22 ). The ramp was physically separated from the altar. ? He said to him, them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp 37b/38a . . This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rebbi Ismael they do divide, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rebbi Ismael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide 7:5 Notes 72–125 . One of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical principles is that “a detail which was singled out from a general category was singled out not for itself but as an example for the entire category.” R. Abun bar Ḥiyya states that according to R. Ismael this holds only for a single detail, not for two or more. . As Rebbi Ismael stated, you shall neither divine nor cast spells . 19:26 . Divination is an attempt to predict the future by magical means; spellbinding is practical witchcraft. Both are particular examples in the prohibition of witchcraft ( Ex . 22:17 ), but no penalty is indicated. . Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class 7:5 ); in the absence of witnesses there is an automatic Divine verdict of extirpation. But the special cases of divination and spellbinding only trigger a verdict of extirpation; they are not cases for the human court. This illustrates R. Ismael’s principle. In Sifra Qedošim Pereq 6(2), R. Ismael and R. Aqiba identify divination and spellbinding as examples of make-believe witchcraft which according to Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:19 is not punishable by the human court. Automatically, these are separate examples of sins which require a purification sacrifice if done without criminal intent. A person who unintentionally acts as sorcerer, divinator, and spellbinder has to bring three sacrifices. ? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case.

In general by extirpation, the separate case by extirpation; the word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that it is “general case and detail”, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since anybody who would perform any of these abomination s, they will be extirpated . 18:29 . This verse decrees a general verdict of extirpation on any violation of sexual taboos spelled out in Lev .18, whether or not they are criminally punishable. . Was not his sister included in the general class. 18:9 but in the chapter about penalties, Lev. 20:17 , the punishment is reserved for Heaven. and was mentioned separately of the general class to divide from the general class. Rebbi Eleazar objected, is it not written. 20:19 . The wording might be slightly misleading. , the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for he would touch his relative ? He told him, this was mentioned separately for a reason, to judge by “touching”. 20:19 makes two statements: The punishment is reserved for Heaven and the sin is committed the moment the genitals of the parties touch, without any penetration. Mishnah Yebamot 6:2 extends the equivalence of touching and penetration to all sexual offenses. . He said to him, is it not written. 20:18 . The implications are the same as for v. 19. , a man who would lie with an unwell woman , uncover her nakedness and touch her source ? He told him, this was mentioned separately for a reason, to judge the one “touching” as finishing. That you should not say, since he is liable for her [already]. 15 it is stated that simple touching (not sexual “touching”) a niddah causes impurity and is forbidden to the male, her prohibition differs materially from the other sexual taboos. for impurity we should not consider for him “touching” as finishing. Therefore it was necessary to mention (that he is liable for each single one.), it seems to be original and explains that Lev . 18:29 decrees separate extirpation and, therefore, separate sacrifices for unintentional sin, for each separate category of incest. He said to him, is it not written. 20:20 . , a man who would sleep with his aunt , his uncle’s nakedness he uncovered ? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness. But is it not written. 20:21 . , a man who would marry his brother’s wife, she is separated ? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness, as Rebbi Yudan 55a ) applies both statements to both verses. said, where it is written childless they shall be . 20:21 . , they will be without children, childless they shall die . 20:20 . , they bury their children.

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his maternal brother’s wife 55a ). . It is said here his aunt , and it is said there. 25:49 . Since the subject of the entire Chapter is inheritance, it is understood that only the male line is addressed. , either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall free him . Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal sister: His paternal uncle’s wife. This is more appropriate for the argument here since his father’s or mother’s sisters are forbidden by Lev . 18:12 , 13 and the prohibition is unproblematic. . Also his brother’s wife 18:16 . can be inferred from his aunt . Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there. 20:21 , the penalty clause referring to the prohibition formulated in Lev . 18:16 . , a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah . 18:19 ), to whom relations with her husband are forbidden, and to the person excommunicated (מְנֻדֶּה) who is separated from the community. In rabbinic Hebrew, the word נִדָּה is used exclusively for the menstruating woman; this is the reference made here, even though the argument is equally valid for the excommunicated person. ( Babli Yebamot 54b .) . Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his paternal brother’s wife may be permitted after being forbidden. permitted after her purification; the brother’s wife may be permitted, viz ., if the brother dies childless. In the latter case, “brother” means paternal brother ( Yebamot 1:1, Note 45 ). This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden.

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it, the name here is Joḥanan. But Ismael may be the correct attribution, since according to one opinion in the Babli, Zebaḥim 107b , this is R. Ismael’s position. S. Liebermann prefers to read “Eleazar” since the supporting argument is quoted in the latter’s name. ? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? . 30:32 ,33 regarding the holy oil. Only v. 33 is discussed. It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it , and it is written, a person who would compound similarly , or who would put it on a stranger , will be extirpated from his people , that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation 14b . . How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females. 20 both sexes are mentioned, the prohibition in Chapter 18 are all formulated for the male, except that the mention of extirpation is formulated (18:29) for “all persons”. Since the punishment for marrying one’s sister is extirpation (20:17) for both partners, it proves that the “persons” mentioned in 18:29 are both male and female. . Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near . 18:6 , the verse introducing incest prohibitions. While the verse starts אִישׁ אִישׁ it is agreed that the meaning is not “every man” but “every person”. , equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity. 7:11–27 . Impurity of sacrifices available to priests is treated in Lev . 22:1–16 . One should assume that a priest who inadvertently eats a combination of impure well-being and other sacrifices has to bring separate purification sacrifices; but this is not the case. ? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny is larceny, it is punishable only if the monetary value of the misuse is at least one peruṭah . Misuse of one half peruṭah ’s worth of Temple donations and one half peruṭah ’s worth of sacrifices is not punishable. , lest one be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurityˋ ilah 4:1. The categories of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity do not apply to monetary gifts to the Temple. Anything donated to the Temple which is not a sacrifice or a Temple vessel is sold by the Temple treasurer and thereby reverts to fully profane status. ,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rebbi Ḥanina text in Sanhedrin reads Ḥinena, preferable for chronological reasons. said, so it is. They split but do not combine different for well-being and other sacrifices. This would agree with the Babli, Me ˋ ilah 15a, that in fact well-being and purification offerings do not combine; the contrary statement of the Mishnah is classified as a rabbinic stringency. .

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail. 8:1, Notes 20–36 (Babli Mo ˋ ed qaṭan 3a). The punishment for violating a biblical prohibition for which no penalty is specified is by flogging. The problem is that ploughing is not specifically mentioned in Lev . 25 . Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal . 25:2 . , a general principle. Your field you shall not sow , your vineyard you shall not prune . 25:4 . , detail. Sowing and pruning were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since sowing and pruning are particular in that they perform work on the soil or on a tree, I have only what is work on the soil or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, are they not for making inferences? There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. Rebbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow , not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard . 25:3 . , not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment 5:3, Note 73 . . Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment 25:3–4 represents a general principle followed by a detail (even if the principle is a positive commandment and the detail a prohibition) then by R. Ismael’s rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “general principle followed by detail: the general principle only applies to the detail”, nothing not mentioned in the verse is prohibited. Since R. Yose was R. Jeremiah’s student, he should be mentioned after his teacher (which he is both in Sanhedrin and Kilaim .) . Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal . 25:2 . ? That is for the prohibition implied by it.

I could think that they should be giving lashes for the addition 8:1, Notes 26–28 . . Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita : I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita : I could think that one gives lashes for the first two termsˋ it 1:1,2:1. . Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard ; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow , etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: 70. Babli, Zebaḥim 106a . Beware of , a prohibition. Lest , a prohibition. And it is written. 12:13–14 : Beware, and do not offer your elevation sacrifices at any place you see. Only at the place which the Eternal will choose … there you shall offer your elevation sacrifices and there you shall do everything which I am commanding you . This is a general prohibition followed by two specific positive commandments. The two verses are parallel, not logically consecutive as R. Eleazar would require. : There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer , that is the offering; and there you shall make , that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer , and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer , and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action 107b , according to one opinion this is R. Ismael’s position. .

Anywhere one stated categories there are derivatives. There, we have stated 1:1 . : “There are four categories of damages. The ox”, this is the horn. Goring and pushing are main categories. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If it bit, lay down, kicked, these are derivatives of the horn. There, we have stated 1:1 . : “The categories of impurity, the crawling animal and semen.” What are derivatives of crawling animals? Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Naḥum: pushings. What are pushings? Touching and Bava qamma categories are labels of sets of derivatives. But in Kelim , treating of impurity, derivative impurity is less infectuous than original impurity, and there are successive states of derivative impurity. The nature of אָב in impurity really is not comparable to the nature of אָב in the other two cases. . The main category of impurity makes everything impure, derivative impurity transmits impurity only to food and drink, or clay vessels 5:1 ); all food and drinks may become impure by derivative impurities of the first degree. Babli Bava qamma 2b . . Food and drink and [clay] vessels cannot become main categories of impurity to transmit impurity. Gonorrhea. And here, we have stated: “The categories of work are 39.” Ploughing is a category. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, these are derivatives of ploughing.

All categories of work they learned from the Tabernacle. 35:1–3 , one concludes that the prohibited actions are those needed for building the Tabernacle and the Service performed in it. The first series (11 categories) describes actions needed to prepare cereal offerings and the shew-bread. The second series (13 categories) catalogues the making of the priestly garments. . What kind of ploughing was in the Tabernacle? They ploughed to plant dyestuff. How much does one have to plough to become liable? Rebbi Mattaniah said, enough to plant a leek. Rebbi Aḥa bar Rav said, enough to plant a wheat sprout. There 17:7 ). , we have stated: “Two green melon 1:2 Note 38 . In modern Hebrew the word means “zucchini”. seeds make liable, two squash seeds, two Egyptian bean seeds.” It was stated, two Median wheat kernels. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since wheat was so much appreciated they treated it like garden vegetables that are not eaten 17:7 ). . For everything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing: One who digs, who cuts, who inserts, who deposits dung, who hoes, who fertilizes, who sweepsˋ Šabbat §55 notes, this disagrees with the Babli which restricts the category of ploughing to land which may be used for agriculture. , who sprinklesˋ Šabbat §55 notes, this disagrees with the Babli which restricts the category of ploughing to land which may be used for agriculture. , who splits blocks, who clears forests, who sets fire to reed thickets or palm swamps, and following Rebbi Zeˋira a water canal prepares its banks for sowingˋ ed qaṭan 2b in the name of Rabba (Abba bar Naḥmani, contemporary of R. Zeˋira). , who removes stones, who builds terraces, who fills the rifts under olive trees, and who makes depressions for vines, and for anything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing.

1:3 ; its main subject are the rules of the holiday. However, since Mishnah Megillah 1:8 states that the only difference between the rules for Sabbath and for holidays is that preparation of food is permitted on holidays, the discussion is relevant also for the rules of the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday 12b ) since making fire and cooking is permitted for preparing food on the holiday ( Ex . 12:16 ) it is permitted for any purpose. . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday 1:2 . Since preparation of food is permitted on a holiday, it is permitted to slaughter for food. If a bird or a wild animal is slaughtered, its blood has to be covered by dust ( Lev . 18:13 ). If no dust is available, the House of Shammai permit to take a prong and dig up some dust; the House of Hillel hold that in this case one should not slaughter but they agree that if one slaughtered one may take a prong and dig. Digging is a derivative of ploughing as noted in the preceding paragraph. . Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same 1:2 is anonymous and therefore presumed to be R. Meïr’s. If it implies the position of R. Simeon then both must agree in this matter. The opponent of R. Simeon in this matter is Rebbi Jehudah, student of his father R. Ilai, who was a student of the Shammaite R. Eliezer. It is intrinsically unlikely that the House of Shammai should accept what later was formulated by R. Simeon. . But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]. “Everybody else questions whether R. Meïr agrees with R. Simeon while you assert this. Then you will have to question what in the sequel is stated as the rabbi’s opinion.” S. Liebermann refers to this sentence the remark of Or zarua ˋ Šabbat 55, that he suspects this Yerushalmi paragraph to contain a scribal error. ? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

For any activity which quickens a fruit to ripen one is liable because of sowing. One who plants, who sinks, who grafts, who prunes, who trains, who removes dead branches, who dirtiesˋ it 2:4). , who removes leaves, who dusts, who smokes, who removes worms, who sprinkles with ashes, who oils, who waters, who drills holes, who makes houses, and for anything which quickens a fruit to ripen one is liable because of sowing.

8:1 (Notes 32–36 , כ ) and Sanhedrin 7:5 (Note 125 , נ ). [Rebbi] Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two countsˋ ed qaṭan 2b, this refers to the case where he prunes with the intent of using the cut branches as wood; then he is simultaneously harvesting and sowing. , according to Rebbi Zeˋira only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeˋira say the pruner is like the planter, did he say perhaps the planter is like the pruner. 25:3 . ? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Zeˋira he is guilty on two counts.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated is in the Babli 73b , Tosephta 9:17 . : “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts spongeˋ ed qaṭan 2b, this refers to the case where he prunes with the intent of using the cut branches as wood; then he is simultaneously harvesting and sowing. , papyrus, or corals. 25:3 . is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, eruca sativa . , endives, sesame, reading כשומין. , mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

“He who binds into sheaves.” Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai asked, what are the derivatives of binding into sheaves? Rebbi Yose: I heard the reason following Rebbi Simeon from Rebbi Aḥa, but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? One who pounds rice, barley, groats, - ae . , is liable because of threshing. He who spreads out ṣeli figs 7:4 Note 86 . , raisins, מסוסלה, bucellata 1:6 Note 182 . Italian buccella “bread crust”. , is liable because of binding into sheaves. For anything involving food one is liable because of binding into sheaves, involving shells because of threshing.

A woman if she mixes wheat, because she is sifting; if she breaks the tips, because she is threshing; if she breaks the sides, because she is selecting; if she hits, because she is grinding; if she sifts, because she is winnowing; if she completes her work, because she is hitting with a hammer.

This linen weaver with a mallet because of threshing; with a roller because of grinding; with a winnowing shovel because of winnowing; with a spoon because of selecting; if he splits because of using a hatchet; if he tears out because of cutting; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

One who is grinding garlic, if he breaks the tips, because he is threshing; if he takes the outer leaves, because he is selecting; if he pounds in a mortar, because he is grinding; if it produces liquid, because of making dough; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

This sausage maker 4:4 . The translation follows Meïri in his Commentary to Babli Beṣah 32a , accepted by S. Liebermann. , if he selects shavings for casings, because of selecting; if he hacks with a coarse file, because of threshing, if he pounds in a mortar, because he is grinding; if it produces liquid, because of making dough; if he fills a hollow, - i , “cavity”. , because of building; if he cuts off bast, because of cutting; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed fish, if for their body he is not liable, but to produce fish sauce he is liable. Rav said, if one compressed pickles, if for their body it is permitted, for their fluid it is forbidden. Preserves both for their body or their fluid is forbidden. Samuel said, both for pickles and for preserves, both for their body or their fluid it is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Mana asked him, why? Because one said forbidden and permitted but the other said liable and not liable.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if one crushed an onion, if it was to give taste it is forbidden, if to reduce its sharpness it is permitted. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: One may hide a radish in salt on condition not to leave it there. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: [If there came] 73b. his clothes from the tailor he may wear them; if they tore 8:10 (Zuckermandel 11:11). He should not publicly be seen fixing his garments. they tore. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: If his garments were entangled with thorns he straightens them out in a guarded place on condition that he not tear 8:10 (Zuckermandel 11:11). He should not publicly be seen fixing his garments. . Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Huna: If (he took) mortar [fell] on his garments he may rub it off with one hand, on condition that he not grind down. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: mint, one is permitted, three is forbidden, two is questionable. One who bathes, Rav Huna and Rav Jehudah. One said, so it is permitted and so it is forbidden. But the other one said, so and so it is forbidden. Rebbi Abba bar Zamina went bathing with Rebbi Zeˋira; he did not let him do either one or the other.

If water fell on his garments. Rav Huna and Rav Jeremiah. One said, to shake it off is permitted, to rub it off is forbidden; but the other one switches.

Rebbi Abba (bar) Ḥiyya bar Ashi, one who spits absorbs it in his garment and does not worry. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi disagreed. One said, one spits and crushes; the other said, one does not spit and crush. Where do they differ? If it is not on a mosaic floor. But if there is a mosaic floor he spits and crushes. If he spat and the wind carried it away he is liable because of winnowing; and for anything which is diminished by the wind 60a , Bava batra 26a . one is liable because of winnowing.

“And who selects.” Rebbi Yudan said, one picks out pebbles the entire day and does not incur liability, and one takes the volume of a dried fig and immediately incurs liability. How is this? If he was sitting on top of a heap of grain and picks out pebbles the entire day, he does not incur liability; if he took in his hand the volume of a dried fig and picked out he is liable.

1:10 (י) and refer to Mishnah Beṣah 1:9 : “The House of Shammai say, he who selects legumes on a holiday selects the food and eats. But the House of Hillel say, he selects normally, on his chest, or from a basket, or from a pot, but not on a table, nor with a sieve. Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” The House of Shammai permit only to pick out the edible parts and eat them directly. The House of Hillel hold that separating the beans from the chaff belongs to the activities permitted as preparation of food and in principle permit any kind of selection; they only require that it should not be done in a weekday fashion. They certainly will agree that the restrictions are purely rabbinical. Rebbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If he did it on the Sabbath would he not be liable according to the House of Hillel? And here he is liable. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah said it correctly. It is a problem only for the House of Shammai. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted on the holiday, nothing of the category of selecting was permitted on the Sabbath.

If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: explain it if guests were eating what was served. But was it not stated: On condition that he did not select all of its kind? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, because one who selects (normally) on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at (one) [another]. Liability on the Sabbath can always be avoided by doing things in a decidedly unprofessional way; the mention of doing things “normally” is appropriate here. place is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings, even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines and beans. He told them, be careful to eat (the wood-chips)(the sticks) [the artichokes], the second word that of the Leiden text in Beṣah , the probably correct choice is the third, from the Genizah text, Greek κινάρα. If this reading is accepted, following S. Liebermann, then the statement is that on a holiday it is permitted to select anything for immediate consumption, even if there are no remainders, and eat a different dessert at the end. at the end.

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40. והרודה . While preparing food is biblically permitted on a holiday as shown later in the paragraph, there is a dispute between the anonymous majority and R. Jehudah whether this includes preparations which could have been made the day before without impairing the quality of the food, which the majority prohibits and R. Jehudah and Rabban Gamliel permit. It is stated here that for the majority the prohibition is biblical, at least concerning preparations for baking. . But did we not state 1:9 . This is the version of the Mishnah always quoted in Halakhot. : “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” And (did we not state) [was it not stated], in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills 1:10 (י) and refer to Mishnah Beṣah 1:9 : “The House of Shammai say, he who selects legumes on a holiday selects the food and eats. But the House of Hillel say, he selects normally, on his chest, or from a basket, or from a pot, but not on a table, nor with a sieve. Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” The House of Shammai permit only to pick out the edible parts and eat them directly. The House of Hillel hold that separating the beans from the chaff belongs to the activities permitted as preparation of food and in principle permit any kind of selection; they only require that it should not be done in a weekday fashion. They certainly will agree that the restrictions are purely rabbinical. ? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose (in the name of Rebbi Ila) [ben Rebbi Abun]: Grinding as a category was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi (Yose) [Aḥa] in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread . 12:16–17 . The text omitted by the quote “up to” permits preparation of food on a holiday, as quoted later in the paragraph. . (It was stated.) Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread 3a s.v. גזרה (at the end): vv. 16,17 form a unit: what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, and you shall guard the unleavened bread . Any preparation of mazzah which requires guarding against possible leavening is permitted on the holiday, anything preceding this, i. e., mixing flour with water to make dough, is forbidden. . Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement: only, every, person , are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

, the original author is Rav, not Samuel. This may be a lectio facilior since Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi was a companion of Rav; but if Rav Cahana is Cahana, the stepson of Rav, it would represent a Babylonian tradition. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted 1:9 . This is the version of the Mishnah always quoted in Halakhot. : “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging 20:1. According to the anonymous majority on a holiday one may not put a filter on top of a barrel because this is an activity not covered by the general permission to prepare food, but if the filter already was in place one may filter wine on a holiday. ”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina ben Yaqe said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve 29b . . If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, (in truth) [also] preparations for making food they permitted 1:7 . . There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

“And who grinds.” He who pulverizes salt, clay shards, peppers, is liable because of grinding. He who cuts into little pieces chalk, gypsum, chaff, sand, dirt, is liable because of sifting. He who kneads chalk, gypsum, dust, eye-salve, plaster, drugs, is liable because of making dough. One who makes dough, or kneads dough, or forms dough, all are because of making dough. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, there 5:2 . The shew bread has to be unleavened. Violating this rule at any stage of the preparation of the bread is a separate biblical violation for each stage. you say, “and he is liable for making its dough, and for its forming, and for its baking,” and here you are saying so? But there he has to divide for he is liable for each single one, but here he is liable only once. You see that baking is a derivative of cooking, and you are saying so? But it was stated here since we are stating the order of the dough.

He who burns potter’s clay, softens glass, melts pitch, melts מוסרין. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: One who melts down lead is liable because of cooking 6b . . One who roasts, or who fries, who preserves by cooking, or by smoking, all these because of cooking. If somebody cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, what? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Ḥizqiah; for Ḥizqiah it was a problem: what if the Passover sacrifice was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias? Two Amoraim, one said, it is forbidden; the other said, it is permitted. He who said, it is forbidden, do not eat from it raw, nor cooked in water . 12:9 . The first part of the verse invalidates the sacrifice heated by hot water. . But he who said, it is permitted, but only roasted in fire , its head with its feet and its innards .

All these measures, if for food, in the volume of a dried fig, if for an animal, the mouthful of a kid goat, if to cook, to cook a quick egg, [ ] zarua ˋ Šabbat §62: אִם לָתַבֵּל כְּדֵי לָתַבֵּל כֵּיצָה קַלָּה “if to spice, enough to spice a quick egg”. , if to weave, the length of a double siṭ , but in Mishnah 13:4 as one siṭ (a hand-breadth, the width of four thumbs). The text here cannot be changed since “double” is clearly visible in G and is quoted in Or zarua ˋ. , if to spin, the width of a double siṭ .

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification,, but in Mishnah 13:4 as one siṭ (a hand-breadth, the width of four thumbs). The text here cannot be changed since “double” is clearly visible in G and is quoted in Or zarua ˋ. what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed., Latin calamus ,- i , m . , in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated 3:3 . Slaughter of a wooly animal cannot be made through thick wool since the fleece might deflect or damage the knife, which would make the slaughter invalid and the animal into carcass meat. Therefore it is necessary to clear some area for the slaughter. It is biblically forbidden to shear a firstling ( Deut . 15:19 ). The Mishnah states that tearing out hairs from the animal’s fleece is not shearing. : “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect. 15:20 ). .” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing 25a . . But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

“Who bleaches it.” He who impregnates wood for vessels and ropes for a windlass. This woman who painted her face red and painted her spindle red 68 (but he reads, “she paints her coat red”. . This tailor who took a thread into his mouth. Rav Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Asbestos “asbestos”. There is bleaching and dying for mineral material. is liable because of bleaching.

“Who cards it.” He who cards date palm fiber, papyrus, is liable because of carding in Arabic. .

“Who dyes it.” What kind of dying was in the Tabernacle? They were clobbering an animal for red skins of rams. 25:5 , 26:14 . . Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he is liable who causes a wound which results in echymosis. He who colors his lips red is liable. He who causes bleeding, because of taking away life force at that place. 17:11 . This does not refer to slaughter which is mentioned separately in Mishnah 3, but to a non-lethal wound. Babli 75a/b . . He who makes a shape, the first one is liable because of writing and the second one because of dying. If he left out a limb and another came and finished it, he is liable because of hitting with a hammer. Wringing and washing are the same category of work. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the dyers in Jerusalem made wringing a separate category of work. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, there are 40 categories of work. Should we state this? We come to state only items to which everybody agrees.

One who makes ropes. The one who twines them is liable because of spinning. One who makes basket work of reeds, sieves, bast mats, is liable because of weaving. A woman when she prepares the loom, because of preparing. When she fastens the web, because of tying threads. When she erects [the loom], because of building. When she hits, because of weaving. When she cuts the threads, because of cutting. When she finishes her work, because of hitting with a hammer. One who makes boxes, when he starts, because of preparing. When he tailors, because of sewing. When he bends, because of building. When he cuts, because of cutting. When he finishes his work, because of hitting with a hammer. One who makes bed-sheetsˋ Šabbat 64 reads an unexplained ערסמו. G treats מלין and ערסװן as two different objects and has for both of them the full list of operations. J. Sussman reads in G not מלין (Ginzberg’s reading, unidentified as an object) but סַלִּין “baskets”. , lengthwise because of preparing, crosswise because of weaving. Grating, because of tying threads. When he cuts, because of cutting. When he finishes his work, because of hitting with a hammer. There are two warp threads per peg and two pegs for each warp thread.

“He who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties.” What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes. 35:18 . Babli 74b . . But was this not temporarily? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word 55b . , was it like temporarily? Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi Abun] zarua ˋ Šabbat 67. said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were (temporary) [permanent]. Rebbi Phineas said, they learned it from the gobelin sewers. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. If it broke again, it was impossible to make many knots but he would untie the first one. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads. And where was this said? As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the gobelins. What is the reason? The length of one gobelin . 26:2 . To form a single unit, a gobelin could not have a broken thread even temporarily. , that it should be an entity. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of (Rav) [Rebbi] Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a basket of palm leaves for dates or a plate of palm leaves one may tear and open, only one may not tie.

Is this not untying? It is like one who breaks an amphora to eat dried figs. The handles of a double sack one may tie and untie. It is as if one opened or locked on the Sabbath.

9:7 (Notes 162–167 , כ ); its topic is kilaim , the prohibition to wear linen and wool together, in particular the problem how many stitches it needs to connect linen and woolen cloth to constitute a violation of the prohibition. Only at the end is a connection made with the laws of the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥanina said, not until it comes down an entire side only if a full seam was sown. This contradicts the Mishnah quoted next. . Rebbi Yannai said, say to Rebbi Ḥanina, get out and read! Did we not state 9:10 . , “if the two ends appear on the same side”? That means, only if it goes up and down and up. And did we not state, “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three needle stitches”? That means that [the thread] goes down, and up, and down. But so and so. A thread drawn through by means of a needle, even if it has a knot on each side, is no connection for cloth. The thread is a connection for cloth but not for the needle, the thread alone must cross the cloth three times, for two stitches. . Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, only if it is knotted on both sides. The words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: He who straightens out the sides on the Sabbath 10:9), it is the regular procedure in sewing a garment that when a seam is sewn the two sides are stretched to be equal before the thread is knotted. Babli 95a . is liable because of sewing. He should have said, because of sewing and tying knots.

Tearing applies to textiles and cutting to hides. Tearing in the middle and cutting from the sides. There are some who switch, tearing of hides and cutting of textiles. Tearing of hides, those soft ones, and cutting of textiles, felt.

3. One who catches a purple snail and crushes it. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable twice. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable only once. He who says twice, one because of catching and one because of depriving of life. But he who says once, this is because of depriving of life. Does he not have catching, whose nature is in doubt. It is not quite clear what is being proved here. Either the emphasis on the taḥaš being a pure animal implies that only catching wild pure animals is a violation, or, since the taḥaš was a temporary phenomenon, it does not imply anything for later generations and no catching of wild animals is a Sabbath violation. ? It comes like what Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Meïr said: The Holy One, praise to Him, created for Moses in the desert a kind of pure animal. After the work of the Tabernacle had been finished it was hidden. Rebbi Abun said, its name was qereš . Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a unicorn. It is preferable to the Eternal to a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves . 69:32 . . It is written, it sprouts a horn.

“Who slaughters it.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no slaughter here; slaughter is a derivative of wounding. And why was it (not)ˋ (II §72). stated with it? Only because we stated the proceedings of a meal it was stated with it.

“Who tans it.” What tanning was for the Tabernacle? They were drafting on them. What were they drafting on them? They were drawing lines with a ruler. , considering the unicorn as a non-kosher animal and stating that nevertheless the Tent of Meeting was covered by its hides. It follows that what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, it is permitted to make tents from the hide of an impure animal.

“Who rubs it clean.” What kind of erasure was in the tabernacle? Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They were rubbing the hide on a pillar. One who rubbed hide clear on a pillar is liable. For what is he liable? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, because of rubbing clean. That is, if it is new. But if it be old, it is the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Since they disagreed: “One who sweeps, who sprinkles, who makes cheese, “who makes hard cheese.” , who makes butter. Rashi: He makes soft cheese and lets it separate from the whey. , who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable for a purification sacrifice. But the Sages say, it is because of Sabbath rest.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who sweeps, who sprinkles, is liable because of threshing. He who makes cheese, who makes butter, is liable because of kneading. He who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable because of harvesting. He who squeezes budding olives is liable because of harvesting. Who needs this? Rebbi Eliezer.

He who files off heads of poles is liable because of cutting. He who applies salve on a wet bandage, - ii , n .. is liable because of rubbing clean.

“If one erased a big letter where there is space to write in its stead two letters, he is liable. If he wrote one large letter even though there is space to write in its stead two letters, he is not liable. Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rabbi Yose says, this is more serious about him who erases than about him who writes that he who erases in order to correct is liable but he who writes in order to spoil is not liable.” It may happen that one writes a single dot and is liable for it because of writing and because of erasing; it may happen that one erases a single dot and is liable for it because of writing and because of erasing. How is this? If it was a ד and he makes it ר ,ר and he makes it ד; he is liable because of writing and because of erasing”, “one erases a single dot on top ”; the words “on top” were erased by the corrector, but they are quoted in Or zarua ˋ II §77, Roqeaḥ 86.) .

4. What building was at the Sanctuary? They were putting the planks on top of the bases”, “one erases a single dot on top ”; the words “on top” were erased by the corrector, but they are quoted in Or zarua ˋ II §77, Roqeaḥ 86.) . But was this not temporary? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word 55b . , it was as though permanent. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that He will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were permanent. This implies, a temporary building is a building. This implies, even from the side. This implies even if was put on top of something else. Does it imply that building on implements is building? The bases are like soil.

It was stated: “If one brings the stone and another one the mortar, he who brings the mortar is liable. Rebbi Yose says, both are liable.” Rebbi Yose is of the opinion that stone without mortar is building. Everybody agrees that if one put up mortar first and someone then brought stone that he is liable. “The builder who set the stone on top of the row, - ūs , f ., Greek δὁμος. is liable.” For whom is this needed? For the rabbis. One who put up planks and one who put up adobe walls is liable because of building.

“And who tears down,” but only for a need. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who braids a palm-leaf basket is liable because of building vessels does not mean that there is no building of vessels. The Babli 75b has a completely different understanding of R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statement: “He who decorates a vessel or blows a glass vessel is liable because of “hitting with a hammer.” . Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who blows a glass vessel is liable because of building. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There are things which are close but far away; and there are things which are far away but close. He who braids a palm-leaf basket, and he who blows a glass vessel, and he who makes a vessel in a form, all are because of building. He who selects, who filters, and who sifts, all because of removing waste. Each of them is separately liable. And why was handing over not stated with them? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi: In addition, there is handing over. And why was it not stated with them? All categories of work involve one, and this one two. All categories of work have derivatives, but this has no derivative.

MISHNAH: They said another principle. Anything which can be preserved and one preserves its kind if he took it out on the Sabbath he is obligated for a purification sacrifice because of it, but for anything which cannot be preserved and one does not preserve its kind, if he took it out on the Sabbath only the one who preserves is obligated.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This has been said for idol worship. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this has been said for things forbidden for usufruct. Rav Ḥisda said, this has been said for minimal quantities. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable for a purification sacrifice. There are Tannaim who state, a minimal amount. He who said he is liable for a purification sacrifice supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said a minimal amount supports Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: For example, the wad which she prepared for her menstrual period 4:6 . Mishnah 3 had stated that materials whose minimal sizes for impurity are different do not combine for impurity. Mishnah 6 states an exception, viz ., that materials that may be used to make chairs or beds do combine; similarly to what was stated for the rules of the Sabbath combination material follows the rules of the material which requires a larger minimal amount. Cloth becomes impure in general if it is at least (3 thumb-widths) 2 wide, but indirectly if a person who is a source of impurity sits on it (מִדְרָס) only by (3 hand-widths) 2 . The minimal size of a piece of sack-cloth for impurity is (4 hand-widths) 2 , for leather it is (5 hand-widths) 2 , and for bast mats (6 hand-widths) 2 . According to R. Simeon any of these materials if made specifically as a seat becomes impure in the size of (1 hand-width) 2 ; for him the problem does not arise since he accepts impurity of combined material only for מִדְרָס. .

MISHNAH: One who brings out straw filling the mouth of a cow, wood shavings filling the mouth of a camel, grain filling the mouth of a sheep, grasses filling the mouth of a goat. Moist garlic leaves and onion leaves the volume of a dried fig 17:7 ). , if dry filling the mouth of a goat; they are not combined since their measures are not identical. One who brings out foodstuffs in the volume of a dried fig; they are combined since their measures are the same except for their shells, and their pits, and their stalks, and their grit, and their bran. Rebbi Jehudah says except for pods of lentils which are cooked with them.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated 4:6 . Mishnah 3 had stated that materials whose minimal sizes for impurity are different do not combine for impurity. Mishnah 6 states an exception, viz ., that materials that may be used to make chairs or beds do combine; similarly to what was stated for the rules of the Sabbath combination material follows the rules of the material which requires a larger minimal amount. Cloth becomes impure in general if it is at least (3 thumb-widths) wide, but indirectly if a person who is a source of impurity sits on it (מִדְרָס) only by (3 hand-widths). The minimal size of a piece of sack-cloth for impurity is (4 hand-widths), for leather it is (5 hand-widths) 2 , and for bast mats (6 hand-widths) 2 . According to R. Simeon any of these materials if made specifically as a seat becomes impure in the size of (1 hand-width) 2 ; for him the problem does not arise since he accepts impurity of combined material only for מִדְרָס. : “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק 462 3:4 הסיקה; as verb later in Mishnah 12:1 להַסִּיק “to heat”) is derived from Aramaic סוק “to ascend, climb”; it means “to make rise (the flames)” and clearly is inappropriate here. Very tentatively I am proposing to translate הֵסֵק as “load” from Accadic asāqu, ašāqu “to load, distribute” Arabic وسقة “load”. ? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: This is what you are saying for red ones. But black ones are separated.