MISHNAH: One does not catch fish from vivaria¹ and one does not feed them. But one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria² and feeds them. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all vivaria are equal. This is the principle: any which still requires catching is forbidden³, but any which does not require catching is permitted.

footnotes: ¹ This vivarium is not a container kept in the house but a pond in which fish are grown. Since the pond is rather large, the fish cannot simply be taken out; they must be caught and this is forbidden on the holiday. On the other hand, the fish can feed from the vegetation that grows in the pond and do not have to be fed every day; feeding is forbidden since the fish will congregate at the spot of feeding where they can easily be taken out; but taking a fish out still would be considered catching it. ² This vivarium is an enclosure in which the animals are kept and must be fed every day. ³ Taking the animal is not catching if and only if the enclosure is small enough that one does not have to run after an animal.

HALAKHAH: “One does not catch fish,” etc. ⁴ Chapter 13 (Notes 60–74), referring to Mishnah Šabbat 13:5. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there: “⁵ one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable⁶.. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated: “one does not catch fish from vivaria and one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated there: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium⁸ 1:5) that the only difference between prohibited work on Sabbath and Holiday refers to the preparation of food. It is explained in Yom Ṭov that preparation of meat starts with slaughter; anything preceding this is not exempt from the prohibition of work.? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered⁹106b, restricts this answer to vivaria.. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden¹⁰? But here a large one, there a small one¹¹ 106b. The question now arises how to define “small” and “large” for practical application.. Rebbi Ulla said, they asked before Rebbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable¹²? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted”¹³ 3:1 in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, in contrast to the formulation in Šabbat 13:5. The prohibition is rabbinic since animals in a corral are no longer wild. The next statement translates the criterion into a practical rule. The Babli 24a has a different rule.. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

footnotes: ⁴ The Halakhah is copied in Šabbat ⁵ Mishnah Šabbat 13:5, a statement of R. Jehudah. ⁶ But the animals still can run around in the enclosure and need to be caught another time. It seems that the anonymous (generally accepted) Mishnah 3:1 is incompatible with R. Jehudah’s statement in Šabbat ⁸ How can the rabbis forbid catching a deer in a vegetable garden as a Sabbath violation but allow it on a holiday? This contradicts the statement (Mishnah Megillah ⁹ A courtyard covered by a roof is a house. The Babli 24a, Šabbat ¹⁰ Nothing would grow in a vegetable garden devoid of sunlight. The answer cannot be correct. ¹¹ A small garden is one where the deer can be taken without effort, a large one where one has to use tools to catch the deer; Babli 24a, Šabbat ¹² This discussion refers to the last statement in Mishnah 1. Should one say that for large vivaria, taking animals on a holiday is a biblical violation even though this seems to contradict the formulation of the first part of Mishnah 1? ¹³ This is the traditional formulation of the last statement in Mishnah Beṣah

“One may slaughter from containers, one may not slaughter from fishermen’s nets or from traps.¹⁴” Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Immi: a net of warp¹⁵. Samuel said, one may catch with a barrel¹⁶. Rav said, the sluice of a water canal is permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, those between the plates¹⁷

footnotes: ¹⁴ Tosephta 3:1; Babli 24b. ¹⁵ It does not have to be a real net with threads knotted crosswise; even a net of parallel threads or wires spanned between two rods is a tool whose use on a holiday is forbidden. ¹⁶ Greek πίθος, ὁ. Scooping up fish from an aquarium using a wide-belly clay vessel is not catching. ¹⁷ While one may not take fish from an open water canal, if part of it is closed off by planks on either side it was transformed into an aquarium from which fish may be taken.

MISHNAH: One may not take from traps for wild animals, or fowl, or fish which he set before the holiday unless it was known¹⁸ that they were caught before nightfall. It happened that a Gentile brought fish to Rabban Gamliel who said they are permitted¹⁹, but I do not want to accept from him²⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁸ This implies that if there is a doubt whether the catch was available for consumption on the holiday before the start of the holiday, the use is forbidden. ¹⁹ He disagrees and holds that as a rule if there is a possibility that the catch was available for consumption on the holiday before the start of the holiday, the use is permitted. ²⁰ He personally follows the ruling of Note 18 but he gave his public declaration to the contrary that practice not be following the restrictive rule.

HALAKHAH: ²¹ 1 (Notes 369–379) relating to Mishnah Šabbat 1:10. Who informs? If the trap was sprung, it is certain that they were caught when it still was daytime. But if the trap was not sprung, it is certain that they were not caught when it still was daytime. And even if the trap was sprung, in worry one may say that they were not caught when it still was day²² 16:5 to holidays is considered biblical (when cases of doubt have to be resolved restrictively) or rabbinic (when cases of doubt have to be resolved leniently).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if it was set in a forest. You should know that it is so since we have stated “fish”. Are fish not there where they are found? Also here at a place where game and birds are found²³17b s.v. אלא)..

footnotes: ²¹ The entire Halakhah was copied in Šabbat ²² The Mishnah requires that it be known that an animal was trapped before the start of the holiday. How can this be ascertained unless one go there and take it out before the holiday? Does the first part of the Mishnah have any practical application? The answer is that by observation from afar one may determine what happened.If an animal is trapped before the onset of the holiday it is prepared to be food on the holiday and may be taken and processed on the holiday. Another question then is whether the extension of Ex. ²³ The rules prescribed are a legal fiction (in the Babli, 24b, ascribed to the last generation of Tannaïm). They can be relied on only in situations where the probability of correctness is significantly larger than 50%. (Quoted by Tosaphot Šabbat

Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav, they wanted to say, they are permitted the next day²⁴ 24a)?. Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden²⁶. But Rebbi Joḥanan said, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.

footnotes: ²⁴ This now refers to the fish brought by a Gentile to Rabban Gamliel. Did he want to say that they can be handled by Jews on the holiday but not eaten on that day or are they as if prepared by a Jew beforehand (Babli Beṣah ²⁶ As explained earlier, the disagreement is whether the requirement of prior preparation is biblical or rabbinic.

The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said a Gentile needs preparation, the other said, a Gentile does not need preparation²⁶. We did not know who said this and who said that. Since Rav once refrained from coming before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who asked him, where have you been? He told him: a caravan passed by and I ate figs from them²⁷; this implies that he said, a Gentile does not need preparation.

footnotes: ²⁶ As explained earlier, the disagreement is whether the requirement of prior preparation is biblical or rabbinic. ²⁷ The Gentile caravan arriving on the holiday.

A student of Rebbi Simai went to Antipatris²⁸; they brought him Morocco-plums²⁹ and he ate. A student of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi went there; they brought him Morocco-plums and he did not eat. He came and told it to his teacher who said to him, this one follows the argument of Rebbi Simai, as Rebbi Simai said, a Gentile does not need preparation. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The red grapes in a vineyard are forbidden. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The hard dates on palm leaves are permitted³⁰.

footnotes: ²⁸ This is generally accepted as explanation of the otherwise unexplained and diverse names reported for the place. ²⁹ According to H. L. Fleischer, New Greek δαμάσκηνος “Damascus plum”; δαμάσκηνα “Damascus plum tree”. ³⁰ Grapes which still are hard at harvest time and left to ripen in late autumn do not fall down by themselves; one must assume that they were plucked from the vine on the day they were brought; one may not accept them from a Gentile who brings them on a holiday. But dates in a similar case will fall down, one may assume that they were collected from the ground and may be accepted.

MISHNAH: A dangerously sick animal³¹ one should not slaughter unless it be known that one may eat from it a roasted piece in the size of an olive during daytime. Rebbi Aqiba says, even raw in its slaughter house. If he slaughtered in the fields he should not bring it by a yoke or a small yoke³², but brings limb by limb in his hands.

footnotes: ³¹ One is afraid the animal might die and be lost as food. The animal can be slaughtered only if it is possible to use it as food on the holiday. ³² A yoke is carried by two people, a small yoke by a single person. Both are commercially used and therefore not appropriate for the holiday.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: If he slaughtered it and wolves ate its intestines it is qualified³³ and forbidden for consumption, this is when the defect has been noted. The only organ which must be checked is the lung., for the presumption of intestines is qualification³⁴ 9a.. Should one not worry that maybe they were punctured? The presumption of intestines is that they are qualified. It was stated: But one may bring it on its hide. What does he do? He leaves one limb on it and brings it together with it³⁵.

footnotes: ³³ Even though punctured intestines make the animal terefa ³⁴ Babli Ḥulin ³⁵ While in Chapter 1 it was permitted to give the hides to the tanner, this refers to hides of animals destined from the start as food on the holiday and therefore prepared for the holiday. But the animal in question here was not prepared and the raw hide is not an implement; there is no reason to permit its movement on the holiday. The expedient to use is not to skin the animal completely but leave one ;piece of meat on the hide. Then this meat is potential food and may be moved; the hide is moved as an appendix of that meat.

MISHNAH: If a firstling³⁶. 15:22). Since the development of a defect by a firstling is an eagerly awaited event, by rabbinic usage the existence of a defect must be verified by an expert. If no defect is found, the firstling is not food and may not be moved from the cistern before the end of the holiday. fell into a cistern, Rebbi Jehudah says, the expert should go down and inspect; if it has a defect he may lift it and slaughter; Rebbi Simeon says, any whose defect was not recognizable on the eve of the holiday is not prepared³⁷.

footnotes: ³⁶ The unblemished firstling has to be given to a Cohen who has to sacrifice it in the Temple. In the absence of a Temple no use can be had of an unblemished firstling; if it develops a defect it may be slaughtered and its meat consumed by everybody, pure or impure (Deut ³⁷ He holds that what was not food before the holiday cannot become food on the holiday; therefore the firstling may be inspected by the expert only after the end of the holiday.

HALAKHAH: The argument of Rebbi Jehudah seems inverted since we stated there³⁸ 24:4., “Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared³⁹.” And here he says so? Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah said, the expert is not from the Torah⁴⁰4:3, R. Jehudah permits to slaughter a damaged firstling without prior certification by an expert. He must hold that by biblical standards it is only the fact of the blemish that counts, not its certification by an expert. In addition, any kosher animal is potential food at all times.. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Abba: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s since Rebbi Jehudah gives the same rules for inspecting a firstling as inspecting ṭerefah. As you are saying there, one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday⁴¹ automatically is not only permitted but in fact required to legitimize the slaughter., similarly one inspects a firstling on the holiday. Rebbi Yudan asked: Demay⁴² is produce of which it is not known whether tithes were taken, cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. is from their words. and inspecting for terefah is from their words. Since you are saying that one inspects for ṭerefah on a holiday, does one separate demay on a holiday⁴³ can be removed on the holiday. But it is stated in Mishnah Šabbat2:7 that demay may be tithed only during twilight on Sabbath (and holiday) eve, therefore not on the holiday itself.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared⁴⁴. But was it not stated, a [firstling]⁴⁵ defect is not potential food. As part of the mother’s body, the calf is not potential food. But if a healthy calf is born on the holiday, it is food at least for R. Jehudah. calf which was born from a terefah animal on the holiday is permitted. Rav Ḥisda said, explain it if the expert transgressed and saw it⁴⁶. There came a case⁴⁷ before Rebbi Immi who wanted to say, between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah⁴⁸3:1, Babli Eruvin46b.. Rav Hoshaia brought a baraita of Bar Qappara from the South and stated: But the Sages say, any whose defect was visible on the eve of a holiday but the expert permitted it only on the holiday is not prepared⁴⁹, the opinion of R. Simeon is quoted as that of “the Sages”, implying that it is practice to be followed. All the rules of precedence are subject to exceptions.. He⁵⁰ changed his opinion.

footnotes: ³⁸ Mishnah Šabbat ³⁹ He does not permit dog food if it was not available before the start of the Sabbath, how can he permit human food which was not available on the the eve of the holiday? ⁴⁰ In Mishnah Bekhorot ⁴¹ An animal suffering from a life-threatening defect is prohibited as food. While there is a long list of such defects, these disqualify as food only if they are found, but one does not have to examine every slaughtered animal for all of these defects except for the lung for which it is obligatory to check for tubercular lesions which would make the animal unfit for human consumption. Since slaughter is permitted on the holiday, inspection for ṭerefah ⁴² Demay ⁴³ Rebbi Huna’s argument is disproved since it would imply that demay ⁴⁴ This statement clearly follows the opinion of R. Simeon in the Mishnah. ⁴⁵ Corrector’s addition, based on Rav Ḥisda’s remark in the following sentence, but the scribe’s original text seems preferable. An animal which is known to have a ṭerefah ⁴⁶ If the corrector’s addition is deleted, then R. Ḥisda explains R. Jehudah’s opinion in the Mishnah since the latter also will agree that rabbinically the expert may not inspect firstlings on the holiday. ⁴⁷ Of a firstling falling into a cistern. ⁴⁸ Terumot ⁴⁹ In this baraita ⁵⁰ R. Immi.

It and its young⁵¹ 3:3 (Notes 90–97) with the references to “here” and “there” switched correctly. Lev. 22:28 states that it is prohibited to slaughter an animal and its young on the same day. Therefore, if both an animal and its young fell into a cistern on a holiday, only one of them can be potential food. The other one is muqṣeh and cannot be moved by humans. Babli 37a, Pesaḥim117b, Tosephta 3:2. fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one⁵². Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted⁵³. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning⁵⁴). Impure ḥallah must be burned but unusable sancta may not be burned on the holiday and dough kneaded on the holiday would become leavened if stored for the next day. Therefore R. Eliezer instructs the baker to bake the mazzah completely and then remove a small part as ḥallah, a method frowned upon on any other day of the year. R. Joshua instructs to follow all the usual rules of ḥallah and burn the dough after the holiday since he holds that leavened matter is forbidden only to Jews, not to Heaven, and ḥallah is Heaven’s property.. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have⁵⁵? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning⁵⁶ he removes the prohibition by declaring it inapplicable.. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering⁵⁷ is rabbinic; eating bread without taking ḥallah is a deadly sin.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have⁵⁸ is worthless.? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other⁵⁹.

footnotes: ⁵¹ The Halakhah also appears in Pesaḥim ⁵² As long as it is not determined which animal is to be turned into food, both are potential food and can be moved. ⁵³ He is permitted to declare both animals as potential food even though he had no intention of slaughtering either one. ⁵⁴ In the matter of an animal and its young he requires strict adherence to the rules. By the biblical rules, a piece of bread dough has to be given to the Cohen under the rules of heave (cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah ⁵⁵ In matters of dough on Passover there is no other way out (short of not making food on the holiday); in the matters of animals it is possible to follow all the rules. ⁵⁶ For the animals in the cistern he allows a fake declaration which permits their rescue; for impure ḥallah ⁵⁷ Muqṣeh ⁵⁸ The animals in the cistern are valuable; impure ḥallah ⁵⁹ Since R. Isaac and R. Josia are last generation Tannaim, their disagreement must refer to the difference between the first generation RR. Eliezer and Joshua.

MISHNAH: An animal which dies⁶⁰ and may not be moved on the holiday. one may not move from its place. It happened that Rebbi Tarphon was asked about this and about ḥallah which became impure⁶¹.. He entered the study hall⁶² and asked. They told him that one may not move them from their place.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ And no longer is food; it became muqṣeh ⁶¹ Which may not be eaten anymore but cannot be burned on the holiday (Note 74); therefore it is muqṣeh ⁶² He must have been young, that he needed the instruction from elders. Therefore this decision has to be dated to Temple times.

HALAKHAH: Samuel said, the five Elders who instructed Rebbi Tarphon in Lydda erred⁶³24:4 the anonymous majority (following R. Simeon) permits to use the carcass of an animal which died on the Sabbath as dog food, while R. Jehudah permits that only for animals having died before the Sabbath, it is established that on the Sabbath practice follows R. Simeon who in most cases denies that the rules of muqḥeh apply. He holds in this statement that therefore on the holiday also one has to follow R. Simeon and treat the animal carcass as permitted dog food.. Rav Mattanah said, the case concerned a firstling⁶⁴, may not be used as dog food but must be buried (after the holiday). Babli 27b. Rebbi Abbin said, the Mishnah says so: “about this and about ḥallah which became impure.” Since that one was holy⁶⁵ cannot be used for any profane purpose; in this it is equal to a dead firstling. Babli 27b., so also this one was holy. They asked before Levi, may one inspect a torn animal in a dark house⁶⁶? He said, bring it outside. Rebbi Immi asked, we heard that one does not inspect cases of skin disease in a dark house⁶⁷2:3. This rule is biblical since it is required that the Cohen see the diseased skin with his unaided eyes (Lev. 12:12).. Did we hear that one does not inspect a torn animal in a dark house? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it is not because of this reason, but lest it would be found ṭerefah and be forbidden to be moved⁶⁸ for R. Jehudah.. It turns out that Rav Mattanah follows Samuel, and Levi Rav⁶⁹. Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, practice follows Rebbi Jehudah⁷⁰.

footnotes: ⁶³ Since in Mishnah Šabbat ⁶⁴ He holds that the Elders ruled correctly but that the case says nothing about the disagreement between RR. Jehudah and Simeon since a firstling, as sanctum ⁶⁵ Impure ḥallah ⁶⁶ Whether the injuries make the animal unfit for human consumption. ⁶⁷ Mishnah Nega`im ⁶⁸ Levi’s rule has no biblical root; it is not comparable to the inspection of skin disease. It is a practical advice to remove the animal from the house before it is declared unfit for human consumption and therefore muqṣeh ⁶⁹ Since R. Mattanah restricts the Mishnah to the case of a firstling, he holds that for profane animals one follows R. Simeon; which is Samuel’s position. But Levi who recommends that one take precautions that the animal not become disqualified as food must follow R. Jehudah. ⁷⁰ Either Samuel changed his opinion, or one should read “Rav” instead of “Samuel”. In the Babli a statement of Rav Ḥisda, 28a.

MISHNAH: One does not subscribe to an animal on the holiday but one subscribes to it on the eve of the holiday and then slaughters and distributes among them⁷¹. Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger⁷², but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.

footnotes: ⁷¹ One may not say to the butcher on the holiday that he is willing to take so-and-so much meat from an animal which he slaughters on the holiday, but one may do so before the holiday for meat to be freshly slaughtered on the holiday. ⁷² The weight of the meat cut for one person may not be determined professionally by scales and weight-stones but semi-professional by scales where instead of certified weights one uses articles of known weight. The Sages require that all distribution of the holiday be by estimate.

HALAKHAH: Therefore adding one adds. If there were five they could be turned into ten⁷³.

footnotes: ⁷³ It only is forbidden on the holiday to start lining up people to make it possible to slaughter an animal which is too much for one family to eat on the holiday; but if a group was formed to assure the butcher that all his meat will be taken on the holiday the subscribers may give of their part to others and so inform the butcher.

It was stated⁷⁴: “A person may not say to another, I participate with you for a tetradrachma, I participate with you for a sheqel; but he may say to him, I am standing for half, third, or quarter⁷⁵.” The great Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi did weigh a firstling piece against piece⁷⁶ the firstling, slaughtered because it developed a defect and now permitted to everybody, may not be an object of trade. Therefore its meat may not be sold by weight. But after the meat was distributed, the parties may use scales to compare the weights of the pieces. Babli 28a.. When was this said? On a weekday. Therefore on a holiday it is forbidden because “one does not use scales at all.⁷⁷” Rav Avun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Even to hang it on the scales because of the rats is forbidden⁷⁸. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not because of this reason but because we did state, “Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.” Therefore a first Tanna is of the opinion that one may use them, and therefore to hang it on the scales because of the rats is permitted⁷⁹.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Tosephta 3:5, Babli 27b. ⁷⁵ No exact amounts may be mentioned on the holiday. Since “one half, a third, a quarter” of an animal or part of an animal are approximations, these expressions may be used. ⁷⁶ As sanctum ⁷⁷ Since scales are tools of trade. ⁷⁸ In his interpretation, any use of scales, even in a non-professional way, is forbidden. Babli 28a. ⁷⁹ He argues that the interpretation of Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel is untenable. Since R. Jehudah finds it necessary to say that one may use scales to weigh in a non-professional way, the Sages say that one does not weigh using scales at all. Their statement says nothing about using scales for a use totally unconnected with weighing.

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a person may calm himself by pounds⁸⁰, “lb.”. While the use of scales in trade is forbidden, their use in private is permitted., to know what he got. As the following: Rebbi Mana bought Sabbatical carob fruit⁸¹8:3), similar to the rules of holidays.. He asked Rebbi Ḥizqiah, who answered him, the rabbis use to follow that of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel⁸².

footnotes: ⁸⁰ Greek λίτρα, equivalent of Latin libra ⁸¹ Sabbatical produce may not be sold by measure, weight, or count (Mishnah Ševi`it ⁸² The produce may be weighed in private, as long as no trade is involved. Babli 28a.

It was stated⁸³: “The butcher should not weigh in his hand and put down since his hand is like an lb. weight, but he may cut with a knife and give to each one⁸⁴.”

footnotes: ⁸³ Tosephta 3:5, an Amoraic statement in Babli 28a. ⁸⁴ He may give equal portions by sight but not by weighing even with his hands.

It was stated⁸⁵33a.: One does not strip by the feet on the holiday⁸⁶, nor on a weekday of a firstling or disqualified sancta⁸⁷ 7:8), but for the disqualified extra care has to be taken to treat them with respect.. Rebbi Abun said, so he should not be like one who uses it for work when it is still living. Rebbi Justus bar Shunem said, they decided that one should not form herds from them⁸⁸33b.. Rebbi Mana said, everybody agrees that to make bellows is permitted, to beat them⁸⁹, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, everybody agrees that to beat them is permitted, to make bellows, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said it is forbidden, the other said it is permitted⁹⁰.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ Babli Bekhorot ⁸⁶ To keep the hide intact so it can be used after the holiday either to make bellows (or bagpipes) or to make them into water-, wine-, or oil skins. ⁸⁷ Neither a disqualified firstling nor any other disqualified sacrificial animal may be used for work or trade. Using the skin is permitted since it is permitted even for qualified sacrifices (Lev. ⁸⁸ For if these are raised in quantity they are done so with the idea of using their hides for commercial purposes and this is objectionable. Babli Bekhorot ⁸⁹ To make sure that all remaining particles of flesh can be removed before the entire hide is made into a container for water, wine, or oil. ⁹⁰ Since there are two contradicting opinions, both actions are forbidden on the holiday.

MISHNAH: One does not sharpen the knife⁹¹ but he cleanses it⁹² on another. A person may not say to the butcher, weigh me meat for a denar, but he slaughters and they distribute among themselves⁹³.

footnotes: ⁹¹ Using a special grindstone to sharpen the butcher’s knife is workday procedure. Sharpening one knife by drawing it along another is not professional and therefore permitted. As noted in the Halakhah, this method also has the advantage of cleansing the knife from fat clinging to it which is a help in preparing new food and therefore permitted without question. Babli 28a. ⁹² Deriving the word not from Hebrew נשׂא “to lift” but Arabic מסי “to draw, to extract”, מס “to touch”. ⁹³ The butcher gets paid for the entire animal (before or after the holiday); the distribution among the subscribers is not his business.

HALAKHAH: “One does not sharpen the knife on the holiday but he cleanses it on another.” Rav Ḥisda said, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s¹¹⁴. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, it is everybody’s opinion, to remove the fat on it¹¹⁵.

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Rav Ḥisda considers sharpening the knife not an action necessary to prepare food, but only an action preparatory to the preparation of food, and therefore for the opponents of Rebbi Jehudah not covered by the biblical instruction to prepare food on the holiday.He must understand the text not as “he cleanses it” but “he draws it” (Note 112). ¹¹⁵ And therefore is action necessary for the preparation of food.

MISHNAH: A person may say to the grocer, fill me this vessel, but he may not specify the measure⁹⁶. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was a measuring cup he shall not fill it. It happened that Shaul ben Botnit filled his measures on the eve of the holiday and gave it to the customers on the holiday⁹⁷. Abba Shaul⁹⁸ says, that is what one does on a holiday, but the Sages say one acts thus also on a weekday because of the emptying of the measuring vessels⁹⁹.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ In the absence of refrigerators, replenishing supplies from the grocery store on a holiday is permitted but it must be done in a non-professional way. ⁹⁷ He had vessels filled exactly to measures before the holiday when this was permitted, gave to his customers on the holiday, and was sure that he was not over-or undercharging them when settling the accounts after the holiday. ⁹⁸ Abba Shaul the Sage is Shaul ben Botnit the grocer. ⁹⁹ It is business practice recommended always to sell fluids in pre-filled containers since all fluids, even wine or milk, are somewhat viscous, and when the customer’s vessel is filled from the grocer’s measuring cup some drops for which the customer is charged will remain in the grocer’s possession. In a large business, these drops may add up to sizeable amounts as noted in the Halakhah (in particular for olive oil.)

HALAKHAH: Rav Huna said, either less or more. Rebbi Eleazar said to Zeura bar Ḥama, fill me this vessel and tomorrow we shall measure it¹⁰⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ Rav Huna forbids filling a vessel to the rim so that on the next day the amount given on the holiday can be exactly determined, with volume and price determined by estimation. R. Eleazar disagreed and instructed his grocer to fill to the rim.

It was stated¹⁰¹: “Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq and Abba Shaul ben Botnit were grocers in Jerusalem. They used to fill their measuring vessels on the eve of a holiday and give them to the customers on the holiday. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqabiah says, they also acted in the same way on the intermediate days of the holiday because of the emptying of the measuring vessels¹⁰². Also he collected 300 amphoras, and his colleague collected 300 amphoras¹⁰³. The Sages said to them, you did not have to do this, but since you were stringent with yourselves, they should be used for public needs.” Once he was sick and our teachers went to visit him. He said to them, you are seeing this right hand which was measuring in truth.

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Tosephta 3:8 ¹⁰² In the Tosephta (by an other tradent, Babli 29a) “not to miss the study house.” The meaning here seems to be the same, that they did not want to wait the long time until the last drop was fallen from their measuring vessel into the customer’s container. ¹⁰³ Of olive oil remaining in the measuring cup.

¹⁰⁴5:2, Notes 39–41. Rebbi Ḥanina said, anybody who says that the All-Merciful is indulgent, his intestines shall dissolve themselves; for He is forbearing and then collects His due. Rebbi Aḥa said, it is written¹⁰⁵ 50:3., His surroundings are very hairy. He is exact with them like a hair’s width. Rebbi Yose said, not because of this reason, but because what is written¹⁰⁶ 89:8., He is awesome on His surroundings, His fear on those near Him is greater than those far away.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ This text is from Šeqalim ¹⁰⁵ Ps. ¹⁰⁶ Ps.

MISHNAH: A person may say to another, give me eggs or walnuts by the count since it is the way of private persons to count these in his household¹⁰⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ Therefore mentioning the count in this case is not an act peculiar to trade and may be used on the holiday.Mishnaiot 8 and 9 are different from those quoted in the Babli but agree with Maimonides’s autograph Mishnah.

HALAKHAH: It was stated: A person may say to another, give me a kelah¹⁰⁸(or issaron, the tenth of an ephah) and 7/4 of a qab or alternatively as a little less than one hundredth of a dry seah which is 2/3 of a fluid seah. of spices since it is the way of private persons to give a kelah of spices into his dish.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ A measure of volume which is permitted to be used on the holiday since it is normal cooking practice to be very careful in the amount of spices used. This measure is not mentioned otherwise in the Talmudim but is defined in Kalir’s סִלּוּק לַפָרָשַׁת שְׁקָלִים as the difference between an omer