MISHNAH: If the holiday falls on a Friday a person may not cook on the holiday especially for the Sabbath¹ but he may cook for the holiday and if he left over he left over; or², “and eruv for dishes.” One cooks for the Sabbath on Wednesday or Thursday, and declares that the dish is cooked especially for the Sabbath. Since the preceding sentence had implied that even without the eruv there is a possibility to cook for the Sabbath on the holiday, the prohibition can be only rabbinic in character and can be removed by the rabbinic institution of the eruv. he cooks a dish before the holiday and relies on it for the Sabbath. The House of Shammai say two dishes, but the House of Hillel say one dish. But they agree about a fish and the egg on it³ to the extent that “fish with egg” may be used as synonym for eruv tavshilin. that they are two dishes. If he ate it or it was lost, he may not start cooking based on it, but if even a minute amount was left⁴ is established. (But cf. Note 34.), he relies on it for the Sabbath.

footnotes: ¹ Since the sanctity of the holiday is distinct from that of the Sabbath, the permission to prepare food on a holiday does not imply to prepare food for a different day. ² This is the preferred way and is called eruv tavshilin ³ According to most early commentators, this refers to a raw egg smeared on the outside of the fish as coating and then fried. Since this takes only a short time, it is the preferred dish for eruv tavshilin ⁴ This implies that no minimal amount for the validity of eruv tavshilin

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday falls on a Friday,” etc. It is written⁵ 16:23. The simple translation of the verse would be: Bake what you want to bake, and cook what you want to cook., what you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. Rebbi Eliezer says, one bakes on the basis of the baked, and one cooks on the basis of the cooked⁶ 4. Babli 15b; partially Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 113. As explained later, the argument presupposes that the basic rules of the Sabbath had not been explained on the occasion of the Manna but earlier at Mara where it is said (Ex. 15:25): There He gave him law and rules and there He tried him (Babli Sanhedrin 56b). In that case the rules given on the first Sabbath with the manna may apply to a special case, which is interpreted that of a holiday falling on a Friday, and R. Eliezer reads the verse as “if you baked for the Sabbath before the holiday, you may bake on the holiday for the Sabbath; if you cooked for the Sabbath before the holiday, you may cook on the holiday for the Sabbath;” explaining the position of the House of Shammai. R. Joshua, the exponent of the House of Hillel, reads, “if either you baked or cooked for the Sabbath before the start of the holiday, you may bake or cook on the holiday for the Sabbath.”. Rebbi Joshua says, one bakes and cooks on the basis of the cooked. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? What you baked bake, and what you cooked cook. What is the reason of Rebbi Joshua? What you will bake and what you will cook cook. Rebbi Eliezer⁷ said, this follows him who said that the Sabbath was given at Mara. But following him who said that at Alush⁸. 33:13 was the station just preceding Rephidim which in Ex. is mentioned as the next resting place after the introduction of the manna. the Sabbath was given, they are at Alush and the warning is given at Alush⁹ 16:23 is the first explanation of the rules of the Sabbath, it must refer to a common Sabbath and not the rare case of a Sabbath preceded by a holiday. In that case the verse must be read as in Note 3.. Come and look, from the Torah it is forbidden and an eruv tavshilin makes it permitted¹⁰ is a restriction, not a leniency. Babli Pesaḥim 46b.? Rebbi Abbahu said, it would be logical that one should bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath¹¹ is a rabbinic “fence around the Law.”. If you would say so, one would bake and cook on the holiday for a weekday¹² 15:3. An action permitted on the Sabbath itself then cannot be forbidden in preparation for the Sabbath.. Come and look, one makes the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath, but one does not bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath. Rebbi Ila said, why may one make the beds on the holiday for the Sabbath? Since one may make the beds on Friday night for the Sabbath day¹³ is justified.. Could one bake and cook on the holiday for the Sabbath? One may not bake and cook on the night of the Sabbath for the Sabbath day¹² 15:3. An action permitted on the Sabbath itself then cannot be forbidden in preparation for the Sabbath..

footnotes: ⁵ Ex. ⁶ Mekhilta dR. Ismael Beshallaḥ Wayassa` Parashah ⁷ Either “R. Eliezer” is a misreading for “R. Eleazar” (the Amora) or, more likely, a word is missing and one has to understand “the argument of R. Eliezer (and R. Joshua) presupposes that the rules of the Sabbath were given at Mara.” ⁸ Which according to Num ⁹ If Ex. ¹⁰ If one accepts that the rules of the Sabbath were given at Alush one is forced to accept that one may not prepare on any day something for a day of lesser holiness, but may prepare for a day of greater holiness. Then by biblical standards one is forbidden on a holiday to prepare for a weekday but is permitted to prepare for the Sabbath, and the requirement of an eruv tavshilin ¹¹ The eruv tavshilin ¹² Mishnah Šabbat ¹³ Since it is not obvious that preparing food on the holiday for the Sabbath is permitted, the institution of the eruv tavshilin ¹² Mishnah Šabbat

Rebbi Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, on condition that he not act craftily¹⁴ but to the statement in the Mishnah that a person without an eruv may cook more than his immediate needs are may keep the excess for the Sabbath. It is required that in that case the meal be cooked for an actual need of the holiday; when the quantities may be increased. One may not invent an imaginary need for this purpose. Babli 17b.. ¹⁵ 1:9, Notes 215–217. The Mishnah follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar as it was stated: “One does not make {food} on a holiday for use after the holiday.” Also, it was stated¹⁶: “A woman may fill a pot with meat even if one eats only one piece from it, a kettle¹⁷. with hot water even if one drinks only one cup from it. But baking, she should bake only what she needs.” For it is stated¹⁸: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may fill the entire oven with bread because the bread turns out well if the oven is filled.¹⁶” Rav Ḥuna preached following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. Rebbi Joḥanan preached to the Tiberians following that of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar. He preached this as practice but they took it as to act on¹⁹. Some wanted to say that he preached to act on. They came and asked him and he preached as practice, and they preached again but we do not know whether as practice or to act on. Rebbi Abba bar Zavdi said, Rebbi Abbahu instructed²⁰ following Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar.

footnotes: ¹⁴ This does not refer to the discussion of the eruv tavshilin ¹⁵ The following text is also in Ḥallah ¹⁶ Tosephta 2:5, Babli 17a. ¹⁷ Latin cocuma, -ae ¹⁸ Since neither the Mishnah nor R. Cahana in his interpretation of the Mishnah exclude baking bread from the general permission; it must follow R. Simeon ben Eleazar. Since the Mishnah is anonymous, it must be presumed to be teaching to be followed. ¹⁶ Tosephta 2:5, Babli 17a. ¹⁹ In this context, “practice” means a valid opinion in the sense that anybody who follows it cannot be accused of acting illegally. “To act on” is the same as the expression “to instruct”, representing best practice, and one which should be recommended by the rabbi to anybody asking about such a situation. ²⁰ While we do not know R. Joḥanan’s exact position, the endorsements by Rav Ḥuna and R. Abbahu are enough to validate the opinion of R. Simeon ben Eleazar as practice to be recommended. Babli 17a.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He has to say, for me and for him who made no eruv²¹ and invites every member of his congregation to prepare food based on his eruv. But the following discussion indicates that the Yerushalmi disagrees with the Babli, that nobody may cook for the Sabbath on a holiday which falls on a Friday without his own eruv. The statement of R. Ḥiyya (bar Abba) then means that one makes the eruv for himself and for permission to cook another person’s meal in preparation for the Sabbath.. If somebody made no eruv, others who made an eruv are allowed to prepare for him from his own {provisions}. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ze`ura: Only if he transfers his property to them, for otherwise it would turn out that they prepare for him from his own. If somebody did not make an eruv and neither did others, he may fry a fish²². Rav Ḥuna said, he may heat hot water. Samuel said, he may light a candle²³ is a rabbinic restriction.. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated²⁴, “he fills an amphora of (wine) [water] and lights his candle”. “It happened that somebody put a vow on his son to study Torah²⁵. The case came before Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta who permitted him to fill him an amphora with water and to light the candle for him²⁶ 6:11, Bikkurim 3:7 Note 102, Babli Nedarim 38b. These are not considered work subject to separate remuneration..”

footnotes: ²¹ It is not quite clear what this means. In the Babli 16b it is spelled out that the rabbi of a congregation makes his eruv ²² Which is done very quickly. Babli 22a. ²³ In theory, if we hold that the sanctity of the holiday implies that one may not prepare from the holiday to the next day, even if that be a Sabbath, one could not light a candle for Friday evening and would have to sit in the dark for the Friday evening meal. This in itself may be taken as proof that by biblical standards one may prepare and that the requirement of eruv ²⁴ Tosephta 2:3. All parallel sources confirm that the corrector’s version is a required correction of a scribal error. ²⁵ He made a vow not to profit from anything his son does until the latter receives a rabbinic degree. ²⁶ Tosephta Bekhorot

Rebbi Ḥiyya the Elder came to his house²⁷. They told him, we forgot to make eruv. He asked them, are there peas left from yesterday²⁸.? They said to him, yes. Does this imply, even one kind? It contained spinach. Does this imply even if it is less than the volume of an olive? It was a full measure. Does that imply that it does not need a declaration? Rav Ḥisda said, the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya had made a stipulation²⁹ before he left. The only implication one can draw from this story is that such a stipulation is valid..

footnotes: ²⁷ He came back from evening service in the synagogue on a Thursday evening which was the start of a holiday. ²⁸ Since the dish could be eaten on the Sabbath, he permitted it to be used as eruv ²⁹ Since he had planned to come home only in the evening, he already made the declaration for the future eruv

“³⁰ It was stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel agree that there are two dishes. Where do they disagree? About the fish and the egg on it³¹, where the House of Shammai are saying it is one dish while the House of Hillel are saying they are two dishes. Everybody agrees that if he applied the egg on salted fish³², or cut leeks under the fish, or cooked two kinds in a pot, that they are counted as two dishes.” And practice follows the student³³. Since the anonymous Mishnah is supposed to be Rebbi Meïr’s, and R. Simeon ben Eleazar everywhere appears as student of Rebbi Meïr (and colleague of Rebbi), the Yerushalmi decides that practice follows the Tosephta against the Mishnah..

footnotes: ³⁰ Tosephta 2:4, Babli 17b. ³¹ Cf. Note 3. ³² A boiled egg is used to fill a salted herring. This is easily recognized as two dishes.The expression פרפר is that of the corrector, following Babli and the Tosephta. It is no longer recognizable what was the original word written by the scribe. ³³ In the Babli 17b practice is decided as following the Mishnah according to the House of Hillel, i. e., that only one dish is needed for eruv

Rav said, I am saying not less than the volume of an olive³⁴ must have a minimal volume of an olive.. Does this not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, for me and for him who did not make eruv³⁵ is made for an indeterminate number of persons, according to Rav it should need an indeterminate volume. This differs from the statement in the Babli 16b where Rav requires the volume of an olive “whether for one person or for a hundred.” Cf. Note 4.? A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: An eruv needs a measure neither at the start nor at the end.³⁶ ³⁷“On a holiday which falls on a Friday one makes eruv neither for courtyards nor for domains, the words of Rebbi Meïr³⁸. But the Sages are saying, one makes eruv for courtyards but does not make eruv for domains”. One makes eruv for courtyards, because it allows something which is allowed to him³⁹, to be consumed on the Sabbath and to permit carrying from courtyard to courtyard in a dead-end alley., but does not make eruv for domains, because you would permit him something which is prohibited to him⁴⁰. There are Tannaim who switch. Rebbi Eleazar said, since there are Tannaim who switch, we have to take notice⁴¹. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze`ura: He who wants to do it right makes the eruv the day before⁴² on a weekday is preferred and unproblematic.. Rebbi Yudan said, what you are saying is when he did not make eruv tavshilin, but if he made eruv tavshilin it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun asked, does eruv tavshilin permit dividers⁴³, everybody agrees that no other eruv can be made on the holiday. If there is an eruv tavshilin, the argument of Note 39 will permit making eruv ḥaṣerot on a holiday. What R. Yudan said, cannot possibly include eruv teḥumin, since an eruv tavshilin cannot move boundaries. R. Yudan’s statement only confirms the statement of the Sages in the formulation given in the text.?

footnotes: ³⁴ A valid eruv tavshilin ³⁵ If an eruv tavshilin ³⁶ Babli 16b. The start is when it is made and the end the time it is eaten on the Sabbath. ³⁷ Tosephta 2:1, Babli 16b. ³⁸ In the Tosephta, the word Meïr is missing. In the Babli, the opinion attributed here to R. Meïr is anonymous, the one of the Sages is Rebbi’s. ³⁹ Since on a holiday one is permitted to carry from one domain to the other, one is permitted to use food prepared on the holiday to make an eruv ḥaṣerot ⁴⁰ Since on the holiday one is not permitted to leave his Sabbath domain, the definition of that domain may not be changed on the holiday. ⁴¹ And in effect follow R. Meïr even according to the Sages. ⁴² Everybody agrees that making all kinds of eruv ⁴³ If there is no eruv tavshilin

MISHNAH: If it falls after the Sabbath, the House of Shammai say that one immerses everything before the start of the Sabbath, but the House of Hillel say implements before the Sabbath⁴⁴ and humans on the Sabbath⁴⁵ is permitted on the Sabbath, it is permitted in this particular case..

footnotes: ⁴⁴ Since the essence of a holiday is the pilgrimage to the Temple, even in absence of the Temple there is an obligation to be pure on the holiday. This includes household implements to be used on the holiday; in Temple times obligatory for everything connected with the preparation and consumption of food. ⁴⁵ Since in principle immersion in a miqweh

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah is about large implements, but for small implements one may use a trick and immerse them. Rebbi Hoshaya stated, a person may fill am impure vessel from the cistern, and be tricky about it and immerse it⁴⁶. If his pail fell into the cistern, his vessel fell into the cistern, he may be tricky about it and immerse it. Two Amoraim, one said about implements impure in original purity⁴⁷; the other said, about implements impure in derivative impurity. The one who said impure in derivative impurity objected to the one who said impure in original purity, even on a weekday would it not need sundown⁴⁸ 22:6.) Since sundown marks the end of the holiday, the immersion would be too late to make the vessel usable on the holiday.? He said to him, about one who wants to eat his profane food in purity⁴⁹.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ The problem is not the immersion; if a vessel is used to draw water from the cistern and is totally immersed in the water, the technical aspects of the immersion are satisfied without any infringement of Sabbath or holiday rules. The problem is that a purifying immersion needs intent, and this is possible on the Sabbath or holiday only by treating the purification as an after-thought. One may not immerse the pail in water in order to purify it, but one may immerse it to draw water and when it is immersed say, since already it is immersed it also shall be purified by this immersion. Babli 18b. ⁴⁷ Purity by biblical standards. ⁴⁸ By biblical standards, while after immersion in water an implement is no longer impure, it becomes ritually pure only after the next sundown (Lev. ⁴⁹ Then the vessel can not be impure, but it does not have to be pure.

All who are obligated to immerse themselves immerse themselves normally on the Ninth of Av and on the Day of Atonement⁵⁰ 13a. In most other Yerushalmi sources one reads; “Those who are obliged to immerse themselves immerse themselves normally in secret on the Day of Atonement” (Berakhot 3:4 Note 167, Yoma 8:1 Note 44, Ta`anit 1:6 64dl.4). For the Day of Atonement (without the remark “in secret”) the statement is in Tosephta Yoma 4:5, BabliYoma 88a.. Rebbi Ḥanina the second-in-command of the Cohanim said, Our God’s House is worth that the Cohanim should lose one immersion because of it. Rebbi Levi preached according to the statement of Rebbi Ḥanina the second-in-command of the Cohanim⁵¹.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ Babli 18b, Ta`anit ⁵¹ Cohanim are forbidden to immerse themselves on the 9th of Av, and therefore are unable to eat heave at the end of the fast, but women who are obligated have to immerse themselves.

“And humans on the Sabbath⁴⁵ is permitted on the Sabbath, it is permitted in this particular case..” Since a man after an emission of semen immerses himself on the Sabbath.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Since in principle immersion in a miqweh

MISHNAH: Also they agree that one lets the water in a stone vessel touch but not immerse¹. When the surface of the water in the vessel comes into contact with the water of the miqweh, it becomes part of the miqweh (of at least 40 seah of water) and therefore is pure. If then the vessel is removed from the miqweh it is filled with pure water even though it practically is unchanged. One cannot do that with a ceramics vessel since ceramics are not purified by immersion in a miqweh; the water after removal from the miqweh would be made impure by the vessel as before. One is not permitted to use a wooden or metal vessel, since then the dipping of the vessel into the miqweh would not be for touching the water but for immersion of the vessel and this is forbidden by the Mishnah.. One immerses from stage to stage and from group to group on the holiday⁵², a new immersion “from group to group” is needed as in the previous case. In the independent Mishnah mss. this is Mishnah 3, in Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah part of Mishnah 2..

footnotes: ¹ If one has impure water one may put it into a stone vessel which is impervious to impurity and immerse it in a miqweh ⁵² Since immersion for purification needs intent (Note 46), the effect of the purification depends on the intent. If he immersed his vessel with the intent to eat profane food in purity and then changed his mind to eat heave, he has to re-immerse his vessel for the newly intended use (since profane food admits two stages of derivative impurity but heave three.) Since the vessel was pure at the start and will be pure at the end, the procedure of purifying “from stage to stage” is possible on the holiday. Similarly, if he wanted to eat with a group eating profane food in purity but then changed his mind to eat with a group consuming Second Tithe, profane food to be consumed under the rules of purity applying to heave and ḥallah

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah does not follow Rebbi, as it was stated⁵³ 16:11 (ed. Liebermann). Babli 18b.: “One does not immerse from stage to stage on the holiday and one does not let the water touch in a stone vessel to purify it on the Sabbath, the word of Rebbi. But the Sages say one immerses from stage to stage on the holiday and one lets the water touch in a stone vessel in purity on the Sabbath.” It only said, in a stone vessel. Therefore not in a wooden vessel⁵¹.

footnotes: ⁵³ Tosephta 2:9, Šabbat ⁵¹ Cohanim are forbidden to immerse themselves on the 9th of Av, and therefore are unable to eat heave at the end of the fast, but women who are obligated have to immerse themselves.

How is from stage to stage? If he wants to work his dough but then his wine press, or his wine press and then his dough; he has to immerse his implements⁵⁴ in purity but then changed his mind to press his grapes in the purity of sacrifices, he has to re-immerse his vessels. The same holds if he wanted his wine to be pure and profane and then decided to use his vessels for dough made in the purity of ḥallah.. How is from group to group? He was eating with one group and then changed his mind to eat with another group, then he has to immerse⁵², a new immersion “from group to group” is needed as in the previous case. In the independent Mishnah mss. this is Mishnah 3, in Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah part of Mishnah 2..

footnotes: ⁵⁴ If he first intended the vessels for his dough to separate ḥallah ⁵² Since immersion for purification needs intent (Note 46), the effect of the purification depends on the intent. If he immersed his vessel with the intent to eat profane food in purity and then changed his mind to eat heave, he has to re-immerse his vessel for the newly intended use (since profane food admits two stages of derivative impurity but heave three.) Since the vessel was pure at the start and will be pure at the end, the procedure of purifying “from stage to stage” is possible on the holiday. Similarly, if he wanted to eat with a group eating profane food in purity but then changed his mind to eat with a group consuming Second Tithe, profane food to be consumed under the rules of purity applying to heave and ḥallah

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one brings well-being offerings without leaning on them, but not elevation offerings; but the House of Hillel say one brings both well-being and elevation offerings and one leans on them⁵⁵ 1:2). Both an elevation offering (Lev. 1:4) and a well-being offering (Lev. 3:2) require that the offerer lean on the head of the sacrifice. The House of Shammai say that on the holiday one may bring a well-being offering since it is the basis of a family meal and therefore appropriate for the holiday, but do not allow for the leaning since the leaning has to be done as hard as possible, which they declare is using the animal comparable to riding it, which is rabbinically forbidden on the holiday. Since by biblical standards the sacrifice cannot be brought without being leaned on, they require the leaning being done before the holiday (after the dedication of the animal as sacrifice and in the Temple precinct.) They do not permit elevation offerings on the holiday itself since it is completely burned and does not represent food. The House of Hillel hold that both kinds of sacrifices are biblically required for holidays of pilgrimage and therefore cannot be excluded on the holiday itself. For them the biblical requirement of leaning-on overrides rabbinical restrictions..

footnotes: ⁵⁵ The pilgrimage to the Temple requires that the worshipper bring both an elevation offering for his appearance in the Temple and a well-being offering for the family celebration (Mishnah Ḥagigah

HALAKHAH: ⁵⁶2:3 (ח). The House of Shammai say, irregular leaning-on was permitted. But the House of Hillel say, irregular leaning-on was not permitted. What is irregular leaning-on? From the day before. Rebbi Ze`ira said, everybody agrees that he did not fulfill his obligation regarding the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease if he leaned on the day before⁵⁷ 14:13) that “the reparation sacrifice follows the rules of the purification sacrifice”, and for the latter (Lev. 4) it is written repeatedly “he leans-on and he slaughters”, implying first that leaning on is required and second that the two actions have to be close in time.; he fulfilled his obligation with voluntary well-being offerings for which he leaned on the day before⁵⁸. Where do they disagree? The festival well-being offerings⁵⁹. The House of Shammai treat them like voluntary well-being offerings; the House of Hillel treat them like the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease. Rebbi Yasa said, that what you are saying, he did not fulfill his obligation regarding the reparation offering of a sufferer from skin disease if he leaned on the day before, {only} on time. If its time has passed it becomes like voluntary well-being offerings⁶⁰.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ This Halakhah also appears as Ḥagigah ⁵⁷ While the ritual of rehabilitating the healed sufferer from skin disease nowhere explicitly requires leaning on the sacrifice, it is written there (Lev. ⁵⁸ Since these are sacrifices in satisfaction of a voluntary vow, no fixed time table is given here. ⁵⁹ These are religious obligations, not voluntary vows. As well-being offerings they have no fixed time table (but they cannot be brought before the holiday), as obligatory offerings at fixed times, on the holidays of pilgrimage, they are more like the offering of the healed sufferer from skin disease whose sacrifice is required on the eighth day of his procedure. ⁶⁰ If the eighth day has passed, the sacrifice can be brought at any time. This emphasizes that the essential point in the disagreement is the role of the fixed time frame for the festival offerings.

⁶¹ 2:10; Babli Ḥagigah20b.“The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai: Since at a time when I forbid to the private person⁶² I am permitting it for Heaven, when it is permitted for the private person is it not logical that it be permitted for Heaven? The House of Shammai said to them, vows and voluntary gifts are proof, since they are permitted to the private person but forbidden to Heaven. The House of Hillel said to them, no. If you are speaking about vows and voluntary gifts which have no fixed time, what does this imply for the festival offering which has a fixed time? The House of Shammai answered them, the festival offering has no fixed time since if he did not offer it on the first day, he may offer it on the second day, if he did not offer it on the second day, he may offer it on the third day. The House of Hillel told them, the festival offering has a fixed time, for if he did not offer it on the holiday of pilgrimage he may not offer it after the holiday. The House of Shammai said to them, is it not already said: only what can be eaten by any person this alone may be made for you⁶³ 12:16.? The House of Hillel answered them, is that a proof? For you it may not be made, [but] it is made for Heaven. Abba Shaul says it was based on another reason: Since when your stove is closed down, your Master’s stove is open, when your stove is open it only is logical that your Master’s stove should be open. Another explanation: It is not in order that your table should be full but the table of your Creator be empty.⁶⁴ offerings. Therefore on a holiday when cooking is permitted, it must be possible for private persons to offer sacrifices to be burned on the altar. The argument is refuted by the House of Shammai since it is agreed that sacrifices not brought as festival offerings but in fulfillment of a vow (either as “vow”, i. e., a promise of an animal, or as “voluntary offering”, a promise of this animal) cannot be brought on the full holiday but only on the intermediate days (or for Pentecost, the week following.) The House of Hillel then point out that vows may be brought any time during the year, it only is a convenience to bring them when one has to visit the Temple anyhow; but festival offerings which are tied to the festival must be brought on the festival. The House of Shammai answer that the festival offerings may be brought on the intermediate days (Mishnah Ḥagigah 1:6), when all work is permitted; but the House of Hillel retort that still after the end of the holiday period there is no possibility of making up for a missed holiday sacrifice. The inconclusive discussion is cut short by Abba Shaul and the “other explanation”, that the position of the House of Shammai leads to the Temple being empty of people on full holidays, crowded on the intermediate days, whereas Pentateuch, Prophets, and Psalms all indicate that the essence of a holiday of pilgrimage is that the Temple precinct be filled to capacity, and that therefore practice must follow the House of Hillel, as explained in the last paragraph of the Halakhah.”

footnotes: ⁶¹ Tosephta Ḥagigah ⁶² Greek ʼιδιώτης. ⁶³ Ex. ⁶⁴ While there are two disputes between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, about leaning on animals and about bringing elevation offerings on a holiday proper, it is clear that once it is decided that elevation offerings can be brought with the required leaning-on, well-being offerings also may be brought with all required ceremonies. Therefore the argument reduces to one about the possibility of offering private elevation offerings on a full holiday. The first argument of the House of Hillel is that on the Sabbath, when all cooking or other use of fire is forbidden to humans, the Temple altar is in full action, burning two daily and two musaf

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish was passing by the school when he heard them reciting the verse⁶⁵. 29:21., they sacrificed animal sacrifices and brought elevation sacrifices the next day. He said, he who interrupts follows the House of Shammai⁶⁶, one implies that the day when Solomon was definitively installed as King in an assembly of all of Israel was a holiday, a natural assumption. While זֶבַח simply means “slaughtered offering”, in the Talmudim the expression always is interpreted to refer to family sacrifices, well-being or thanksgiving offerings. The verse then implies that it was permitted to bring well-being sacrifices on the same day, but not elevation offerings, which seems to follow the House of Shammai. (Since the House of Shammai require that the leaning-on ceremony be performed the day before, this interpretation presupposes that everybody knew in advance what David was going to do; unlikely but not impossible.); he who reads it as one sentence follows the House of Hillel⁶⁷. One understands elevation sacrifices the next day; but well-being sacrifices the next day? Are not well-being sacrifices brought following the House of Shammai⁶⁸ (i. e., well-being sacrifices) of all of Israel. This implies that all elevation sacrifices were State sacrifices; following the House of Shammai the well-being sacrifices of all of Israel would have to be mentioned before, not after, the elevation sacrifices.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, David died on Pentecost⁶⁹; all of Israel were deep mourners⁷⁰ and they brought the next day.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ 1Chr ⁶⁶ If one reads they sacrificed animal sacrifices, but they brought elevation sacrifices the next day ⁶⁷ If one reads the verse following the masoretic accents it is one unit and implies that well-being and elevation offerings were brought on the same day, but since the next day was supposed to be a workday, what one should formulate that the verse describe a situation equally acceptable to both Houses. ⁶⁸ This is an objection to the first statement, that the verse may be read supporting the House of Shammai. As usual, the argument refers to the part of the verse not quoted. In the second part of the verse it first is stated that the official offerings were 1’000 bulls, 1’000 rams, 1’000 sheep and their libation, in addition to animal sacrifices ⁶⁹ Since the obituary notice for David is immediately following (vv. 26–28), it is implied that he died immediately after handing over to Salomon the blueprint for the Temple and the money to cover the expenses. ⁷⁰ People who are obligated to take care of the burial of any Jew are barred from sacral acts. It is difficult but not totally impossible to combine R. Yose ben R. Abun’s statement with v. 22, that on that day they ate and drank in great joy.

⁷¹ 2:11, Babli Ḥagigah20a.“It happened that Hillel the Elder brought his elevation offering⁷² to the Temple courtyard⁷³ and leaned on it. The students of Shammai ganged up on him. He started to wag its tail, said to them, look, it is a female and I brought it as well-being sacrifice, and kept them talking about other matters until they left. After some time the House of Shammai became strong and they wanted to fix practice following their words. There was there Bava ben Bitay⁷⁴ from the students of the House of Shammai who realized⁷⁵ that practice followed the House of Hillel. Once he entered the Temple courtyard and found it desolate⁷⁶. He said, the house of those who make our God’s House desolate shall be desolate. What did he do? He sent and brought 3’000 sheep from Qedar sheep⁷⁷ 60:7., checked them for defects⁷⁸, and displayed them on the Temple Mount. He said to them, listen to me my brothers, the House of Israel. Anybody who wants to bring an elevation sacrifice may bring it and lean on it, to bring a well-being sacrifice may bring it and lean on it. At that moment, practice was fixed following the House of Hillel; and nobody said anything⁷⁹.” ⁸⁰ but also in Ma`aser Šeni 5:6 (Note 108). The text here (in parentheses) is obviously corrupt; the reasonable text is that of Ḥagigah in brackets. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Eleazar said, (this implies) this cup for breakfast has to be full⁸¹; the (poison) worm in the wood comes from itself⁸²; any coal which does not cause a burn at the start will not cause one⁸³. ⁸⁴ 2:12, Babli Ḥagigah20a.“Again it happened that a student of Hillel brought his elevation offering to the Temple courtyard and leaned on it. A student of Shammai saw him and said to him, what is this leaning-on? He said to him, what about being silent? He silenced him by a reprimand and he left.”

footnotes: ⁷¹ Tosephta Ḥagigah ⁷² Which has to be a male. ⁷³ On a holiday where the House of Shammai forbid offering private elevation offerings. ⁷⁴ At other places he is called ben Buta; he can be dated to Herod’s time. ⁷⁵ Not in theory but by the experience mentioned in the sequel. He accepts the ruling of the House of Hillel in this particular case only. ⁷⁶ Since nobody wanted to bring his festival well-being offering without the equally required elevation offering. In addition nobody wanted to forgo the leaning on the animal just preceding the slaughter. ⁷⁷ A biblical allusion to the best quality of sheep, Is. ⁷⁸ For defects which would disqualify them as sacrifices. ⁷⁹ The other followers of the House of Shammai were silenced by the evidence. “Practice” here means Temple usage which the serving priests were instructed to follow. ⁸⁰ This comment by popular sayings appears not only here and in Ḥagigah ⁸¹ A controversy arouses passions only at the start. Since by the time it was settled by Bava ben Bitay it was an old matter, one had to expect that nobody was interested anymore. ⁸² Practice was decided against the House of Shammai by one of their own students. ⁸³ Nobody is excited if a matter not of intense current interest is decided one way or the other. ⁸⁴ Tosephta Ḥagigah

MISHNAH: The House of Shammai are saying that a person may prepare hot water for his feet only if it is drinkable⁸⁵, but the House of Hillel permit⁸⁶. One may make a pyre and warm himself by it⁸⁷.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ Since only the preparation of food is permitted on the holiday. ⁸⁶ Since cooking was permitted for the purpose of preparing food it is permitted for any purpose similar to preparing food. (For understanding the Babli the last four words are deleted.) ⁸⁷ In the Halakhah interpreted differently for the Houses of Shammai and Hillel.

HALAKHAH: One explains this by two explanations: in the opinion of the House of Shammai if he drank from it; in the opinion of the House of Hillel if it is drinkable⁸⁸ 21b, s. v. לא..

footnotes: ⁸⁸ The House of Shammai only permit the use of hot water if some of it was used as a drink; the House of Hillel permit heating if the water is drinkable, according to their principle (Note 86). This seems incompatible with the language of the Mishnah since it seems to put the words of the House of Shammai into the mouth of the House of Hillel, but is a necessary interpretation if we hold that the House of Shammai permit heating only for the purpose of preparing food. The Babli ignores the problem, Tosaphot

“One may make a pyre and warm himself by it.” This is everybody’s opinion on condition that there be a kettle by the pyre. One may explain it by another explanation: In the opinion of the House of Shammai, on condition that there be a kettle by the pyre. In the opinion of the House of Hillel, even if there is no kettle by the pyre⁸⁹.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ The Babli 21b disagrees and holds that the statement must be by the House of Hillel alone.

⁹⁰ 3, Notes 121–128. Hot water heated on a holiday and similarly hot water heated on Friday for the Sabbath, Rav and Samuel, one said, one uses it to wash his face, hands, and feet, while the other said, one uses it to wash his body limb by limb. We did not know who said what but since Samuel stated, one uses it to wash his face, hands, and feet, it follows that it was [Rav] who said, one uses it to wash his entire body limb by limb. A philosopher asked Bar Qappara; Ablat asked Levi the eunuch: Is it permitted for drinking but forbidden for taking a bath? He told him, if you saw an eunuch embracing your wife, would you not feel badly about it? He said, yes. He asked him, can he squeeze her⁹¹. Text here: “him”. in any way? He said, that she should not get loose morals. He told him, here also that they should not get loose morals. After he left, his students told him, this one you pushed away with a stick; what do you answer us? He said to them: Is there not already written⁶³ 12:16. only what is being eaten by everybody, this alone may be made by you.

footnotes: ⁹⁰ This paragraph also is in Šabbat ⁹¹ Translation of the text in Šabbat ⁶³ Ex.

MISHNAH: In three matters Rabban Gamliel is restrictive following the words of the House of Shammai: One does not store away hot water from the holiday to the Sabbath⁹² (Note 2); on the other hand if water is considered food under all circumstances whether hot water can be stored even with an eruv tavshilin since its nature is not changed by cooking., one does not raise the candelabrum on the holiday⁹³, and one does not bake his bread as large loaves but as thin cakes⁹⁴. Rabban Gamliel said, never in my father’s house did they bake their bread as large loaves but as thin cakes⁹⁵. They said to him, what can we do about your father’s house who were restrictive for themselves but permissive for all of Israel⁹⁶ to bake their bread as large loaves and on charcoal⁹⁷.

footnotes: ⁹² In their times, hot water was not often used as drink. Therefore on one hand it is questionable whether one may not store hot water from the holiday which falls on a Friday to the Sabbath without eruv tavshilin ⁹³ If the candelabrum came apart one may not put it together again. ⁹⁴ Those are eaten quickly and there is no danger that one may bake on a holiday also for the following weekday. ⁹⁵ He infers that this is practice to be followed by everybody. ⁹⁶ Restrictive practices by outstanding religious authorities cannot be taken as rules for everybody. Since the majority objected to his statement about baked goods, only that statement is not practice. ⁹⁷ Gen. 40:16, the story of Pharao’s baker. It is not clear whether the root is חרר “to be roasted on coals”, or (Aramaic, Arabic) חור “white”, baked goods made from very white flour. In any case, it seems to designate baked goods made in larger quantities, of which therefore some may be left over for the next day which is not a holiday.

HALAKHAH: Abba bar Rav Huna⁹⁸ said, [this is]⁹⁹ if he did not make an eruv tavshilin for himself. But if he made an eruv tavshilin for himself it is permitted. What is the difference between a dish and hot water? From a dish one usually eats, from hot water one usually does not drink.

footnotes: ⁹⁸ In the Babli 21b in the name of Rav Huna himself. ⁹⁹ Corrector’s (unnecessary) addition.

“One does not raise the candelabrum on the holiday.” What you are saying is about a composite candelabrum, but not about a candelabrum which is not composite. As the following: Rebbi Yose’s students were sitting together. The candelabrum fell down before them; each single one slipped off by himself and went away.

“One does not bake his bread as large loaves but as thin cakes.” Since you tire him¹⁰⁰ he bakes only what is needed. Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: what is this great burning rage¹⁰¹. 29:23, root חרר.. The Sages understand it from the following, and behold, three bags of white-flour baked goods on my head¹⁰². 40:16, root חרר..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Since making single small loaves is more work that making one large loaf. ¹⁰¹ Deut ¹⁰² Gen

MISHNAH: He also said three matters of leniency: On the holiday one sweeps between the couches¹⁰³, which may be swept after the meal to collect the morsels of food which fell down during the dinner. If the dining hall has a dirt floor, sweeping with a broom will have the side effect of filling uneven spots in the floor, which is a building activity and therefore forbidden. There would be no problem on a stone floor. and puts down incense¹⁰⁴ 12:16 only permits work for things available to everybody.; and one makes a helmeted kid-goat¹⁰⁵ in the Passover night, but the Sages forbid.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ The couches are in the dining hall, triclinium ¹⁰⁴ One puts spices on burning charcoal to cover any bad smell. This cannot be considered cooking food, and even for the House of Hillel it is forbidden since it is available only to the rich and the verse Ex. ¹⁰⁵ A kid-goat roasted whole. Since this is the way the pascal lamb has to be roasted as sacrifice in Temple times, it is forbidden in absence of a Temple.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁰⁶“In Rabban Gamliel’s house one used to sweep between the couches. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, I ate many times at Rabban Gamliel’s and they did not sweep between the couches, but they had spread sheets on the ground¹⁰⁷ and when the guest left they were folding them. They said to him, this he is permitted to do even on the Sabbath. In Rabban Gamliel’s house one used to put down incense in a barrel. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, I ate many times at Rabban Gamliel’s and they did not put down incense in a barrel, but they were burning incense in chests¹⁰⁸ “chest”, from Greek πυργίσκος. The sources are given by Liebermann, Tosephta kiFshutah Moed p. 957. on holiday eve, and when the guests arrived they were opening them. They said to him, this he is permitted to do even on the Sabbath.”

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ Tosephta 2:13-14, Babli 22b. ¹⁰⁷ “On the earth”. This proves that one speaks of a dirt floor. ¹⁰⁸ Late vulgar Latin pyrdiscos

“And one makes a helmeted kid-goat in the Passover night, but the Sages forbid.” ¹⁰⁹ 7:1 (Notes 21–24); Babli Pesaḥim 74a.“What is a helmeted kid-goat? Entirely roasted, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. If he parboiled part of it, or cooked part of it, this is not a helmeted kid-goat. One serves helmeted kid-goat in the evening of the first day of Tabernacles, (and on the first day of) [and in the night of the last day of] Passover¹¹⁰ Note 22.. One serves helmeted calf on the first night of Passover but not helmeted kid-goat¹¹¹.” ¹¹² text, this paragraph also is in Mo`ed qatan 3:1 (81d line 27,). Babli 23a, Berakhot 19a, Pesaḥim 53a. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Theudas of Rome led the people of Rome to eat helmeted kid-goat in the Passover nights. The Sages sent and said to him, if you were not Theudas, would we not put you in the ban? Who was Theudas? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, because he was providing for the rabbis. Are you not causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple? And anybody causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple has to be put in the ban.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ Tosephta 2:15. The same text in Pesaḥim ¹¹⁰ The scribe’s text in parentheses and the corrector’s in brackets are both acceptable; the roasted kid-goat is forbidden only during the first night. Therefore the corrector’s change of the text is unwarranted, but cf. Pesaḥim ¹¹¹ Roast meat is acceptable as long as it is not sheep or goat. ¹¹² In addition to the Pesaḥim

MISHNAH: Three things did Rebbi Eleazar ben Azariah permit but the Sages forbid. His cow was going out with a strip between her horns¹¹³, and one grooms an animal with combs with small teeth on a holiday¹¹⁴, and one grinds peppers in their proper mill¹¹⁵. Rebbi Jehudah says, one does not groom an animal on the holiday with a comb with small teeth because it produces bruises, but one may groom with a comb with large teeth. ¹¹⁶ But the Sages are saying one uses a comb with small teeth but not with large teeth.

footnotes: ¹¹³ On a Sabbath, when the owner of an animal is biblically required to let his animals rest. ¹¹⁴ To remove parasites from the animal’s skin. ¹¹⁵ While biblically it is permitted (even desirable) to prepare food on the holiday, the permission does not extend to the preparation of ingredients; cf. Chapter 1, Notes 241–242. R. Eleazar must hold that ground pepper loses much of its strength if kept overnight; for him the grinding is part of the preparation of the meal while for the majority is it preparation of an ingredient. ¹¹⁶ This text is obvious nonsense and has to be replaced by the text quoted in the Halakhah: But the Sages are saying that one may comb neither with small teeth nor with large teeth.

HALAKHAH: ¹ Rebbi Abba: Both Rav and Samuel are saying, the words of the Sages are that even pulling her with them is forbidden. Rebbi Abba in the name of Samuel: If its horns were drilling it is permitted¹¹⁸. Rebbi Yose said, I pointed out the difficulty before Rebbi Abba and he said, we only stated: “the female camel with a nose ring.¹¹⁹ Chapter 5; the only other permitted loads are those to protect the lives of humans and animals. Babli Šabbat52a.” Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Samuel: A badly behaved ox goes out with his bridle; our teachers in the Diaspora do this. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rebbi Jonathan, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: A badly behaved donkey goes out with his bridle. Rebbi Illa, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: A dog goes out with his muzzle¹²⁰51b.. If to punish him it is forbidden, if so he should not eat his bridle it is permitted.

footnotes: ¹ Since the sanctity of the holiday is distinct from that of the Sabbath, the permission to prepare food on a holiday does not imply to prepare food for a different day. ¹¹⁸ If the horns are dangerously sharp and the strips are not a decoration but a necessary precaution they do not have to be removed. ¹¹⁹ Anything which is only for control of the animal must be of the kind mentioned inMishnah Šabbat ¹²⁰ Babli Šabbat

Ganiva said, he was continuing teaching as ruling. Rebbi Jonah from Bostra asked, if he was continuing teaching as ruling, is that what we were stating: “against the will of the Sages”¹²²? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: Bar Delaya stated, they told him, either remove yourself from between us or remove the strip from between its horns. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he was shielding himself against them¹²³. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, it went out once and his teeth became black from the fasts and mortification. Rebbi Idi from Ḥotra said, it was his wife¹²⁴. And from where that his wife is called “calf”? “Had you not ploughed with my calf you would not have solved my riddle¹²⁵. 14:18.” There¹²⁶54b., they are saying, it was his neighbor. Is anybody punished for his neighbor’s behavior? Rebbi Qiris from Irma¹²⁷: To teach you that if anybody has the possibility to protest and he does not protest, the damage is attached to him.

footnotes: ¹²² A theoretical disagreement is an everyday occurrence; as long as the teacher does not advocate acting against the received majority opinion he should be commended, not rebuked. ¹²³ He actively indicated that the majority opinion was wrong. ¹²⁴ This explains why “his cow” is mentioned in the singular when he was very rich and the owner of large herds. ¹²⁵ Jud ¹²⁶ In Babylonia; Babli 23a, Šabbat ¹²⁷ Irma possibly is Urmia in Armenia.

¹¹⁷ 5, Notes 73–83. What is קִידוּר? {Combs} with small {teeth} which cause bruises. קִירְצוּף, {combs} with large {teeth} which do not cause bruises¹²⁸.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ This paragraph and the next are also in Šabbat ¹²⁸ Tosephta 2:17, Babli 23a.

“But the Sages are saying one uses neither a comb with small teeth nor one with large teeth.”¹¹⁶ Not one with small teeth, that one not come to make a bruise, nor with large teeth, that one not come to tear out hair.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ This text is obvious nonsense and has to be replaced by the text quoted in the Halakhah: But the Sages are saying that one may comb neither with small teeth nor with large teeth.

¹²⁹“In the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq said, my father once ate at Rabban Gamliel’s when they brought before him oily fish sauces¹³⁰ 8:2, Note 24. containing ground pepper. When he tasted this, he put it away. They said to him, do not worry, they were ground the day before.” But would not Rebbi Ṣadoq be as in error with Rabban Gamliel and could eat¹³¹? But not to permit work by the example of Rabban Gamliel¹³².

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Tosephta 2:16, cf. Chapter 1 Note 242. This argument refers to the statement of R. Eleazar ben Azariah in the Mishnah who agrees with Rabban Gamliel. ¹³⁰ Greek ʼελαιόγαρον; cf. Ševi`it ¹³¹ It is implied here that food prepared in violation of an implied holiday prohibition is permitted to persons not involved in the preparation of this food. This is stated explicitly only in the Babli 25a. ¹³² It is agreed that R. Ṣadoq could have eaten Rabban Gamliel’s sauce, and he might have eaten had he not been a respected rabbinical authority. He did not want to endorse Rabban Gamliel’s action by eating his food in a semi-public place since the common authority of Rabban Gamliel and R. Ṣadoq would have permitted the routine grinding of pepper on the holiday, which for him is biblically forbidden.

MISHNAH: The pepper mill is impure¹³³ because of three vessels, because of a container, and as a metal vessel, and as sieve¹³⁴ 6:21. Implements which can be used as containers are impure (unless made of stone which is impervious to impurity) on basis of Lev. 11:33. A sieve is an implement made for work and is susceptible to impurity by Lev. 11:32..

footnotes: ¹³³ This statement is an appendix to the previous Mishnah where a pepper mill was mentioned. In all statements about purity, “impure” means “susceptible to impurity”; “pure” means “impervious to impurity”. ¹³⁴ As the Halakhah explains, the mill is composed of three parts. Each of the parts may become impure for a different reason but since they are connected the impurity of one part causes the impurity of the whole. Any metal vessel can become impure since metal vessels are mentioned as impure in Lev.

HALAKHAH: The lowest part as container, the uppermost as metal vessel, and the middle part as sieve¹³⁴ 6:21. Implements which can be used as containers are impure (unless made of stone which is impervious to impurity) on basis of Lev. 11:33. A sieve is an implement made for work and is susceptible to impurity by Lev. 11:32..

footnotes: ¹³⁴ As the Halakhah explains, the mill is composed of three parts. Each of the parts may become impure for a different reason but since they are connected the impurity of one part causes the impurity of the whole. Any metal vessel can become impure since metal vessels are mentioned as impure in Lev.

MISHNAH: A baby carriage is impure as support¹³⁵, may be used on the Sabbath, but is drawn¹³⁶ on implements. Rebbi Jehudah said, no vessels are drawn except a carriage because it compresses¹⁴⁰.

footnotes: ¹³⁵ Any implement used to sit or lay on becomes biblically impure if it supports a person impure by gonorrhea (Lev. 15:9,26) or menstruation (Lev. 20). This impurity is transmitted by the load; no direct contact is necessary. If the princess has her period, even if she touched only the uppermost of her ten mattresses, the entire bedstead is severely impure. ¹³⁶ As the parallels in the Babli and the independent Mishnah mss. as well as logical necessity show, there is a word missing and one must read “but it is only d rawn on implements.” As the Halakhah explains, the Mishnah follows Rebbi Jehudah who holds that on the Sabbath and holidays one is liable also for unintended or undesirable effects of his action, in contrast to R. Simeon who holds liable only for prohibited actions whose prohibited effect was intended. The problem here is that drawing anything on a dirt floor will make a groove. Since pieces of dirt are moved to the side of the groove, this is forbidden digging. Therefore for R. Jehudah and his followers one may drag things on a floor only if the dirt is covered. ¹⁴⁰ Under a wheel the dirt is moved only vertically, not horizontally, and this is missing an essential ingredient of biblically forbidden digging.

HALAKHAH: We have stated¹³⁸ 2:18; Babli Šabbat 22a, 29b, 46a, Pesaḥim 101a, Menaḥot 41b) only R. Simeon’s opinion is quoted.: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool¹³⁹., or a fauteuil¹⁴⁰, because he makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits.” ¹⁴¹ Chapter 3, Notes 74–78; Kilaim1:9 (Notes 167–178). Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥuna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath¹⁴². Similarly it is permitted to return it. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated¹⁴³1:9 referring to turnips and radishes partially hidden after harvest.: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon’s. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a carriage because it compresses¹⁴⁴..”

footnotes: ¹³⁸ In the Babli version (Tosephta Yom Ṭov ¹³⁹ Latin subsellium ¹⁴⁰ Under a wheel the dirt is moved only vertically, not horizontally, and this is missing an essential ingredient of biblically forbidden digging. ¹⁴¹ This text also is in Šabbat ¹⁴² Since the mud is soft, the groove will disappear by itself; it was not “made”. ¹⁴³ Mishnah Kilaim ¹⁴⁴ Mishnah 10. The wheels of the carriage will press the dust down, not move it sideways as would be the case if one drags anything without wheels. The Sages opposing R. Simeon forbid moving the “unprepared” dust even if this was not the intention of the person acting. This Mishnah cannot follow R. Simeon; it contradicts R. Simeon’s Mishnah in Kilaim