MISHNAH: One lowers produce through a skylight¹ on the holiday. Also one covers produce by vessels because of leaks; the same holds for jugs of wine and jugs of oil. On the Sabbath one may put a vessel under a leak².

footnotes: ¹ If there is danger of rain one may remove the produce stored on the flat roof through the skylight. ² To collect the rain water leaking through the roof.

HALAKHAH: “One lowers produce through a skylight on the holiday,” etc. The Mishnah is about this roof, but from another roof it is forbidden if it is not equal³. But if it was equal it is permitted. It was stated⁴: If there was a window, one lowers⁵ through the window.

footnotes: ³ All roofs of contiguous houses of equal height are considered as one roof. But if the roof of some house is of a different height, moving the produce from one roof to the other would be seen as workday exertion and is rabbinically forbidden on the holiday. Contradicted in Babli 36a. ⁴ Contradicted in Tosephta 4:3 ⁵ משחילין is the correct original form of משילין.

⁶4, Notes 38–46. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: One spreads a mat over rows of bricks on the Sabbath⁷ items may not be moved, but they may be touched. It does not seem that this is the Yerushalmi’s attitude, as expressed by Rav in the question of the hunters. Nevertheless here the bricks are not touched; people sit on the mat. Babli 36a, Šabbat43a. In the reading of the Babli this is a Tannaitic statement and the bricks are not there for a future building project but are leftovers from a finished one..

footnotes: ⁶ The following text is copied from here in Šabbat ⁷ Even though the bricks are there as building materials one may turn them into seats if needed since they are not moved. In the Babli’s theory, muqṣeh

Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. An egg which was laid on a holiday one props up against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel⁸. But Samuel says, one may cover it with a vessel. Rebbi Mana said, only if the vessel not touch the body of the egg⁹.

footnotes: ⁸ He holds that a vessel may be moved only for something that itself may be moved. Since the egg was not laid before the holiday it is not prepared and may not be moved. ⁹ Samuel holds that a vessel may be moved for any legitimate purpose. Babli Šabbat 42b. R. Mana requires that the vessel be moved in a way that certainly avoids moving the egg.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated: One may spread a sheet over a swarm of bees¹⁰43a. in the summer because of the sun, in the rainy season because of the rain. Is this following Rav? Following Samuel? Here on top, there below¹¹.

footnotes: ¹⁰ The real reason naturally is to catch the bees when they are swarming on a Sabbath or holiday. If it can be done in a way which also protects the bees it may be done; Babli Šabbat ¹¹ Since Rav permits to cover the bricks he also will permit to cover the bees. But since Samuel prohibits touching the egg he might forbid here since the cloth necessarily will touch bees. Samuel also will agree here since the swarm is hanging on the branch of a tree, not lying on the ground and supported by it as in the case of the egg.

Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: It is forbidden to move the weaver’s beam weaving fine cloth¹² Chapter 6 appears לסוטה as Aramaic translation of Hebrew רְדִיד, a fancy outer garment of women. The identification of פחי as “weaver’s beam” follows a suggestion of Kohut (Arukh completum s.v. 2 פחה), accepted by Liebermann, that this is Arabic חפה.. The hunters were spreading traps and these were damaged by the sun. They came to ask Rav, may one move them? He told them, [it is forbidden to touch them.]¹³ Intend to put them under your heads and it is permitted for you to move them¹⁴.

footnotes: ¹² The translation is tentative. In Is. ¹³ Corrector’s addition. ¹⁴ If the traps are actually used as a support for the head they may be moved even though at nightfall this intended use is only in the owner’s mind.

It was stated: If an amphora of ṭevel¹⁵ is produce subject to heave and tithe from which heave had not been taken. Since eating untithed produce is sinful, on a holiday ṭevel is muqseh. Since the produce is stored in an amphora, one speaks of wine or oil. became defective one brings another vessel and puts it under it. If it is filled, it is forbidden to move it¹⁶ produce.. Rebbi Ze`ira said, this implies that one makes an uncommon arrangement¹⁷ for muqseh to save it. But did we not state, from the vat of grapes, from the load of olives [which drew fluid] one may not take on the holiday, and is it not necessary to say on the Sabbath¹⁸ in all cases.)? Rav Ḥisda said, even though both of them are tevel, this is muqṣeh and that is not muqṣeh¹⁹ without question. In the case of ṭevel the produce is forbidden and it is forbidden to tithe on Sabbath and holiday. But this is a purely rabbinic prohibition; if tithe is given against the rules the produce is unquestionably food prepared for the holiday and permitted for consumption.. The following implies that one makes an uncommon arrangement for muqseh to save it. [It was stated.] If a light burned out, one saves its oil²⁰. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is Rebbi Simeon’s since Rebbi Simeon said, if it burned out it is permitted to move it²¹3:6, Tosephta Šabbat3:13. Since for R. Simeon there is no muqseh, the quote proves nothing.. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, he mentioned only “to move it,” therefore one is permitted to save it²².

footnotes: ¹⁵ Ṭevel ¹⁶ Since now the vessel is filled with muqseh ¹⁷ One proceeds in a way which is not what one would have done on a working day, where one would have brought another amphora and poured the entire contents into the new vessel. ¹⁸ A vat with newly harvested grapes or a vessel with olives whose cover was loaded down with weights in order to start extracting the oil from the olives. If the grapes were harvested to make wine, any fluid in the vat oozing out of grapes will be loaded into the wine press. In both cases, the fluids are not intended for consumption on the holiday and therefore not “prepared”. (On a Sabbath, fluid oozing out of a fruit is muqseh ¹⁹ In the case of vat and olive vessel the fluid is muqseh ²⁰ Even though while the light was burning the oil was not available for other uses since extinguishing a light is a biblical violation. ²¹ Mishnah Šabbat ²² Since Mishnah and Tosephta were formulated to show the difference between R. Simeon and the anonymous Tanna (presumed to be R. Meïr), the restriction to moving in the sources shows that R. Jacob bar Aḥa’s argument is not conclusive and the quote may be used to support R. Ze`ira,

It was stated²³3:11.: “One puts a vessel under a leak on the Sabbath. If it was filled, one pours out and repeats without hesitation.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, they made this like rivers and sources coming from outside the Sabbath domain, as it was stated: from rivers and sources coming from outside the Sabbath domain one fills on the Sabbath and it is not necessary to say on a holiday²⁴121b, Eruvin46a, 48a. The language of the Babli sources states that these waters are “according to everybody’s feet”, see Mishnah 3..

footnotes: ²³ Babli 36b, Tosephta Šabbat ²⁴ Cf. Babli 39a, Šabbat

MISHNAH: One is liable on the holiday for everything classified as Sabbath rest, classified as obligatory, classified as meritorious²⁵5, p. 96–99). Those classified as meritorious are deeds to the Temple. Most of the items are discussed in detail in the Halakhah. The reasons for the prohibitions given in the Babli cannot be presumed for the Yerushalmi.. These are classified as Sabbath rest: One does not climb on a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor sail on water, nor clap the hands in anger, nor clap the hands in joy, nor dance. These are classified as obligatory, one does not judge, nor contract preliminary marriage, nor give ḥaliṣah, nor enter levirate marriage. These are classified as meritorious, one does not dedicate²⁶, nor dedicate one’s worth²⁷ 27:2–8 and Tractate Arakhin., nor dedicate as herem²⁸. 18:14., nor collect heaves and tithes. All these were said regarding a holiday, so much more regarding the Sabbath. The only difference between holiday and Sabbath is preparation of food²⁹1:5..

footnotes: ²⁵ All the prohibitions listed in the Mishnah are rabbinic; therefore the expression “one is liable” is difficult to understand since usually it is reserved for severe biblical infractions. The activities classified as Sabbath rest are rabbinic restrictions, mostly to avoid possible biblical infractions. Those classified as obligatory may also be meritorious, nevertheless they are rabbinically forbidden on the holiday (cf. S. Liebermann, Tarbiz ²⁶ Animals as sacrifices or property to be given to the Temple. ²⁷ As described in Lev. ²⁸ Gifts to the priests, Num ²⁹ Repeated in Mishnah Megillah

HALAKHAH: Sabbath rest which is voluntary, and obligation which is meritorious. What is Sabbath rest which is voluntary? One does not climb on a tree, nor rides on an animal, nor sail on water, [nor clap his hands in anger, nor clap his hands in joy, nor dance.]³⁰ What is obligation which is meritorious? One does not judge, nor contract preliminary marriage, nor give ḥaliṣah, nor enter levirate marriage³¹.

footnotes: ³⁰ Corrector’s addition. ³¹ The paragraph makes clear that in the Mishnah רשות means “acts which may be obligatory and in that case are meritorious”, as discussed in detail by Liebermann (l. c. Note 25).

It was stated: One does not climb on a tree whether moist³² or dried-up³³100b.. One understands moist; dried-up? So we are saying, it is forbidden to step on a twig on the Sabbath³⁴? Or does it follow Rebbi Meïr, as Rebbi Meïr said³⁵7:2., “a dried-up vine is forbidden but does not sanctify”³⁶? It is everybody’s opinion; they forbade the dried-up tree because of a moist tree. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi came running before Rav. He asked him, how did you come? He told him, [by] the warped date palm³⁷. He said to him, who permitted you?

footnotes: ³² Fruit bearing. ³³ Including trees without fruits. Babli Eruvin ³⁴ Even dry twigs; this is a minority opinion. ³⁵ Mishnah Kilaim ³⁶ It is forbidden to grow vegetables in a vineyard. This applies also to dry vines, but in contrast to active vines the vegetables do not become forbidden for usufruct. ³⁷ Implying that he stepped over the trunk, which for Rav is forbidden.

Rebbi aḥa³⁸10 (Note 116) and the name is supplied from there. in the name of Rav: It is forbidden to trample on a twig on the Sabbath. There is no difference between the roots of a tree or the leaves of cabbage. If they are three {hand-breadths} high³⁹. But if they are not three {hand-breadths} high they are like the ground.

footnotes: ³⁸ The name is missing here. The entire paragraph is copied from Eruvin ³⁹ Any growth three hand-breadths high is a tree for the laws of Sabbath and holiday.

Why did they say that one does not climb on a tree? Is it lest he forget and eat, or maybe lest he forget and shake it? Let us hear from the following: If he was riding on an animal one tells him, descend. This implies, lest he forget and shake it⁴⁰.

footnotes: ⁴⁰ It will be shown in the sequel that riding on an animal is a biblical infraction. Since riding on an animal is quoted in the same sentence as climbing on a tree, the prohibition of climbing must be to avoid a biblical infraction. Shaking a tree to have its fruit fall down is the regular way of harvesting olives; therefore for all trees shaking is harvesting and a biblical transgression.

Why did they say, if he was riding on an animal one tells him, descend? The colleagues say, maybe the animal will (be girded, be nursing) [be damaged]⁴¹. Rebbi Yose said to them, think of it, if it was a large camel! Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: There is a difference, because he is commanded about the rest of his animals like his own: That your ox and your donkey rest⁴² 23:12.; like you⁴³. 5:14.. There are Tannaim who state, one may lean on an animal. There are Tannaim who state, one may not lean on an animal. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one may lean on, if he is healthy; he who said one may not lean on, if he is weak⁴⁴. Rebbi Yose says, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and the colleagues disagreed. One said, one may lean on, but the other said, one may not lean on. He who said one may lean on, if he leans a little bit; he who said one may not lean on, if he puts on his full weight. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose did not say anything in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, this implies⁴⁵155a, Ḥagigah16b) any leaning on animals is forbidden. that a healthy person may lean on, a weak one may not lean on.

footnotes: ⁴¹ The text is not clear, nor is its meaning. The scribe’s text is תיטק but the letter ט is damaged and was read as נו by the Venice printer and נז by the corrector. There is no Hebrew root נטק (or יטק) on record; the Arabic root נטק means “to gird”. In the Babli 36b the reason is purely rabbinic, lest one cut a twig from a tree to drive the animal. The reader’s own conjecture as to the meaning will be as good as any other proposed interpretation. ⁴² Ex. ⁴³ Deut ⁴⁴ A healthy person leans on an animal as he would lean on a human; this must be permitted. A sickly person might use the animal to support his entire weight; this is counted as a biblical infraction. ⁴⁵ Since R. Yose reported the disagreement between Amoraim without further discussion he indicated that this disagreement was unimportant since the apparent disagreement between Tannaim already was explained away by Rav Ḥisda; the latter’s explanation was accepted also in the Galilean Academy. In the Babli (Šabbat

“Nor sail on water⁴⁶” Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: This implies that it is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him. And similarly, it is forbidden to set something under sail to bring it to him. Rebbi Abba Mari and Rebbi Mattaniah were sitting⁴⁷. They saw a person splitting the water⁴⁶ to both sides and drinking. Rebbi Abba Mari said to Rebbi Mattaniah, this is what Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, a person is forbidden to set something under sail to send it away from him⁴⁸. He answered, it is what we have stated, “a person may break open an amphora to eat dried figs from it⁴⁹”

footnotes: ⁴⁶ The person sailing does not do anything; the wind provides the power which pushes the water away on both sides of the boat. ⁴⁷ On a weekday; therefore they did not have to actually intervene. ⁴⁶ The person sailing does not do anything; the wind provides the power which pushes the water away on both sides of the boat. ⁴⁸ Since the sailboat splits the water and the man observed did split the water. ⁴⁹ If the amphora is tightly closed with clay that sticks to its walls, one may open it by damaging the vessel even though the intent is for a positive action. Therefore one certainly may split the water in order to drink.

“Nor clap the hands in anger.” סִיפּוּק is in anger, as you are saying, Balaq got angry about Bileam and he clapped his hands in anger⁵⁰. 24:10..

footnotes: ⁵⁰ Num

“Nor clap the hands in joy.” טִיפּוּחַ is by his desire. Rebbi Jonah and the colleagues, one said this way it is permitted, the other way it is forbidden⁵¹, but the other said, both ways it is forbidden. We did not know who said what, but since Rebbi Jonah said, in our days there were old men who were clapping the backs of their hands on the Sabbath; this implies that he said, this way it is permitted, the other way it is forbidden. Rebbi was marrying off his son Rebbi Simeon where they were clapping the backs of their hands on the Sabbath. Rebbi Meïr passed by and heard their sound⁵²13b.. He said, our teachers, is the Sabbath permitted⁵³? Rebbi heard his voice; he said, who is that who comes to trouble us in our home? [There are those who are saying that he said so: who is the one who comes to hide us in our home?]⁵⁴ Chapter 5.) Rebbi Meïr heard his voice and fled. They⁵⁵ went out and ran after him running. The wind blew his turban⁵⁶ from Rebbi Meïr’s neck. Rebbi peeked from the window and saw the neck of Rebbi Meïr from behind. He said, I attained learning only because I saw Rebbi Meïr’s neck from behind. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both said, we attained learning only because we saw Rebbi’s finger from [the back of his sleeve.⁵⁷ גולגוקין, should be deleted from the dictionaries.]

footnotes: ⁵¹ As explained in the sequel, it means clapping his palms is forbidden but the backs of the hands is permitted. ⁵² But he could not see how they clapped. (Since according to all other sources R. Meïr died during R. Simeon ben Gamliel’s lifetime, this might have been R. Meïr’s ghost.) Babli Eruvin ⁵³ Are Sabbath prohibitions lifted? ⁵⁴ Corrector’s addition, not found in the quotes of this passage in Rif, Ravan, Rosh (on Beṣah ⁵⁵ The guests of the Sabbath post-wedding meal. ⁵⁶ According to H. L. Fleischer, Greek φακίολον. ⁵⁷ The scribe’s text is no longer legible. The word printed in the editio princeps,

“Nor dance.” Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Jumping: one lifts both legs simultaneously. Dancing: one lifts one and keeps the other down. Rebbi Eleazar said, all sound making is forbidden on the Sabbath⁵⁸104a.. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac was of the opinion to knock for a new synagogue⁵⁹. Rebbi Hillel son of Rabbi Vales would knock on a cup. Rabbi Ila stayed late at the great assembly. When he went home, he found them sleeping. He lay down on the stairs so as not to knock on the gate on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jeremiah explained Scripture with Rebbi Immi’s son. He went and wanted to wake him up in the morning of the Sabbath. He started knocking on the door. His father told him, who did permit this to you? Rebbi Abba bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Yasa, may one knock on a belly on the Sabbath? He said to him, who permitted that on a weekday⁶⁰? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, the rabbis are accustomed on a weekday from the navel upwards, through his clothing from the navel downwards⁶¹13b..

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Babli Eruvin ⁵⁹ He disagrees with R. Eliezer and holds that some noise making by knocking on doors is permitted. The text is quoted differently by Raviah (§795) and Mordochai (§696): רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק סַבִּי מַקּוּשָׁה דִכְנִשְׁתָּא “Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: My grandfather was knocking for the synagogue,” finding in this passage the justification for the German usage of the “Schulklopfer” who in the morning knocked at the doors of Jewish houses to call people to the synagogue. Therefore practice has to follow R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac against R. ⁶⁰ Since it could injure the person. ⁶¹ As current practice in medical massage. Differently Babli Niddah

“One does not judge.” ⁶²1:1 (Notes 43–46) and Sanhedrin4:7 (Notes 53–53a). Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge criminal matters on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”⁶³4:7.? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for words of the Torah⁶⁴113a, Sanhedrin32a..

footnotes: ⁶² The same text is found in Ketubot ⁶³ Mishnah Sanhedrin ⁶⁴ In theory it would be possible to judge on a Friday but in practice it is not done. Babli Bava Qamma

⁶⁵1:1 (Notes 34–42,כ), Ta`aniot4:9 (69b l. 40,ת). Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: A man may not preliminarily marry on a Friday. That means, to make an engagement feast⁶⁶. This implies that the preliminary marriage itself is permitted. Samuel says, even on the Ninth of Ab⁶⁷ a preliminary marriage is permitted, lest another forestall him. The argument of Samuel seems inverted. There⁶⁸18b., he says, God puts singles in a house; *To rise on scales; they all are of vapor!*⁶⁹ 68:6, 62:10. This means that marriages are pre-ordained in Heaven. (Lev. rabba29(5).) And here, he says so⁷⁰2a, Sanhedrin22a.? That means, that he should not forestall him in prayer. Even so, it would not be permanent.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ The parallels are in Ketubot ⁶⁶ Since this would impinge on the Sabbath meal. It is in order to make the preliminary marriage on Friday and arrange the festive meal as Sabbath meal. ⁶⁷ The anniversary of the destruction of both Temples. ⁶⁸ A similar argument is in the Babli, Mo`ed qaṭan ⁶⁹ Ps. ⁷⁰ If marriages are pre-ordained, why should anybody be afraid that another man could snatch the bride preselected for him? Another man might by his prayer cause the Heavenly decree to be changed, but this would lead to the early death of one of the partners of the marriage. Babli Soṭa

⁷¹8:3. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Immi: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one dedicates; the other said, one does not dedicate. The rabbis of Caesarea make it explicit: Rebbi Joḥanan said, one dedicates without problems on a holiday; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not dedicate without problems on a holiday⁷². There are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of lambs; there are Tannaim who state, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim⁷³148b).. He who says, he goes to sellers of lambs, follows him who says, one dedicates. He who says, he goes to sellers of Pesaḥim, follows him who says, one does not dedicate. This implies that it does not become profane and then dedicated again. If you would say that it becomes profane and then dedicated again, it should be forbidden [because of dedicating], and we have stated, “one does [not] dedicate.⁷⁴.” Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana, one said, if he dedicates for the next day; but the other said, if he dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple⁷⁵. Rebbi Shammai said, even for him who said that one dedicates, in the Temple Court because rabbinic Sabbath prohibitions were permitted in the Temple⁷⁶..

footnotes: ⁷¹ This paragraph also is in Pesaḥim ⁷² There is no doubt that biblically one is permitted to dedicate animals as sacrifices on a holiday; the question is whether there is a rabbinic prohibition. ⁷³ If the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath. In the first formulation, the lambs are profane and have to be dedicated on the Sabbath to be permitted into the Temple court; in the second version they already are dedicated (cf. Babli Šabbat ⁷⁴ It seems that one has to read with the corrector “that one does not dedicate”. Since our Mishnah explicitly declares that the prohibition of dedication of sacrifices is rabbinical, it implies that inside the Temple precinct proper the prohibition does not apply. In this situation there is no disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish and no inference may be drawn about the status of monies dedicated for Pesaḥ ⁷⁵ Dedication of a sacrifice to be eaten on the holiday has to be considered part of the preparation of food and is permitted; what the Mishnah forbids are dedications either not for use on the holiday or not for food at all. ⁷⁶ As explained in the last sentence of Mishnah Eruvin

⁷⁷1:8 (71a l. 36–45, מ).“All these were said on a holiday, so much more on the Sabbath..” Are these it? Are there no others⁷⁸? There is stoning on the Sabbath, there is no stoning on a holiday. There is extirpation on the Sabbath, there is no extirpation on a holiday. There is flogging on a holiday, there is no flogging on the Sabbath⁷⁹. If you would say, we are coming to state cases connected with food, did we not state: “one lowers produce through a skylight¹ on the holiday but not on the Sabbath”? In addition from the following, one grinds aromatic wood for a circumcision on a holiday but not on the Sabbath⁸⁰134a.. Rebbi Yose said, only if he circumcised⁸¹. In addition from what was stated⁸²1:8 as an addition by the corrector., “The Sages agree with Rebbi Meïr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.”

footnotes: ⁷⁷ The paragraph also appears in Megillah ⁷⁸ One proves that the list is incomplete. ⁷⁹ Desecrating the Sabbath is a capital crime, intentional desecration being punishable by stoning if there are witnesses, by divine extirpation otherwise. Desecration of a holiday is a simple transgression, intentional desecration before witnesses is punishable by flogging. ¹ If there is danger of rain one may remove the produce stored on the flat roof through the skylight. ⁸⁰ Babli Šabbat ⁸¹ Since grinding aromatic wood is not preparation of food it may be done if the necessity is clearly established, not in advance of an expected event. ⁸² The paragraph appears in Megillah

“The only difference between holiday and Sabbath is preparation of food.” ⁸²1:8 as an addition by the corrector. What is between them⁸³1:7: “The only difference between holiday and Sabbath is preparation of food; Rebbi Jehudah says, also actions preparatory to the preparation of food.” The question is, what are the actions which the rabbis forbid but R. Jehudah permits.? Rav Ḥisda said, to sharpen the tip of the spit is between them⁸⁴. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, to make fire from wood is between them⁸⁵. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Bar Delaiah: what is the matter⁸⁶? Is the matter to sharpen the tip of the spit? or is the matter to make fire from the stones? You only have the following⁸⁷: “One does not sharpen the knife but he cleanses it on another.” Rav Ḥisda said, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, it is everybody’s opinion, to remove the fat on it⁸⁸.

footnotes: ⁸² The paragraph appears in Megillah ⁸³ This refers to a text like Tosephta Megillah ⁸⁴ The rabbis hold that preparing utensils for use on the holiday is not included in the permission to prepare food. Rebbi Jehudah permits, but according to Rav Hisda he only permits what on the Sabbath would not be a clear completion of one of the 39 forbidden kinds of work. He permits sharpening the tip, not making a tip which would turn a stick into a spit and therefore violate “hitting with hammer”. ⁸⁵ Starting a new fire on firewood is clearly a complete action forbidden on the Sabbath, and in his opinion permitted by R. Jehudah. ⁸⁶ He quotes a Tanna who confesses his inability to decide between Rav Ḥisda and R. Abbahu’s son. ⁸⁷ Quoted from Chapter 3, Halakhah 8. ⁸⁸ If Rav Ḥisda inferred his interpretation of R. Jehudah’s position from Mishnah 3:7, his argument has to be rejected since Samuel explained it as action necessary for the actual preparation of food, not a preparatory one. Since practice does not follow R. Jehudah, no conclusive answer is needed.

May one light an idle candle⁸⁹? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden. A baraita disagreed with Ḥizqiah: “Do not make fire in all of your dwelling places on Sabbath day⁹⁰ 35:3.. On the Sabbath you may not make fire, but you make fire on a holiday.⁹¹ in Mekhilta dR. Ismael.” If you would say, we deal with cases connected with food, is there not written, only what can be eaten by any breathing being, that alone may be made by you⁹² 12:16.. Therefore what we are dealing with an idle candle⁹³. Rebbi Avuna said, it was stated there⁹⁴, the House of Shammai forbid but the House of Hillel permit. Rebbi Naḥum the brother of Rebbi Ila asked before Rebbi Joḥanan. He said to him, do neither forbid nor permit⁹⁵.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ A candle lit for no particular purpose. ⁹⁰ Ex. ⁹¹ The last baraita ⁹² Ex. ⁹³ The argument goes as follows. From the verse quoted first we infer that making a fire is forbidden only on the Sabbath, therefore not on the holiday. The verse quoted second implies that one has to cook, and therefore make fire, on a holiday. If the permission to make fire were restricted to the preparation of food, the inference from the first verse would not be needed. Therefore the permission to make fire extends to fire not needed for the preparation of food; e. g., for lighting. This still does not cover permission for candles lit for no particular purpose. ⁹⁴ The reference is to Mishnai 1:6, where the House of Hillel argue that carrying from a private into the public domain is permitted for any purpose since it is permitted to transport food. Similarly they must argue that making a fire is permitted for any purpose since it is permitted for making food. This still requires an argument that a candle lit for no particular purpose still increases the enjoyment of the holiday. ⁹⁵ One cannot forbid since one follows the teachings of the House of Hillel. One cannot permit since there is no proof that a candle lit for no particular purpose increases the enjoyment of the holiday. (As noted earlier, the permission to make fire does not include permission to generate new fire, Note 85.)

MISHNAH: Animals and vessels are like the feet of their owner⁹⁶ to move his Sabbath domain. Since on a holiday one may carry in the public domain, the eruv extends to all movable property of the person who makes it. That a thing is “like the feet of a person” means that it may be carried to any place accessible to that person but no other place. Note that the grammatical plural בְּעָלִים means a single owner.. If he hands over his animal to his son or to a shepherd they are like his own feet. Vessels particular to one of the brothers in a common household are like his feet, but those not particular are like they place where they walk⁹⁷, the common vessels can be transported only in a domain accessible to all of them..

footnotes: ⁹⁶ On a holiday a person may not leave his Sabbath domain. As on a Sabbath, on a holiday he may make an eruv teḥumim ⁹⁷ If some of the members of the household made eruvin

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah if he handed it over on the holiday; but if he handed it over to him on holiday eve it is like the shepherd’s feet. If there is there one shepherd, but if there is not one shepherd there, like the feet of the cow hand. And it was stated thus: “If he hands his animal to the cow hand even though he did not inform the cow hand it is like the cow hand’s feet.¹⁰⁰”

footnotes: ¹⁰⁰ An animal is like the feet of its owner only if the shepherd was not informed before the start of the holiday. This applies if there is a choice of shepherds (that there is at least one other shepherd available to compete for his business) and the owner did not make up his mind before the holiday. But if there is only one cow hand, the owner already knows that if he does not want to slaughter the animal that it will be given to that cow hand, it is as if delivered before the holiday and may be moved only to places accessible to the cow hand. Babli 37b.

MISHNAH: If one borrows vessels from another person, on holiday eve they are like the feet of the borrower, on the holiday like the feet of the lender. If a woman borrowed from another spices, water, and salt, for her dough, they are like the feet of both of them⁹⁸. Rebbi Jehudah excludes water since it lacks stability⁹⁹.

footnotes: ⁹⁸ Both the ingredients and the dough may be moved only to a place accessible to both women. ⁹⁹ Since water may be taken from a river or an aqueduct bringing water from outside the Sabbath domain, the domain restrictions cannot apply to it.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁰¹2:1 (Notes 52–54,ש). Rebbi Abba said, for eruv they went according to the logical rule¹⁰² and those of Second Tithe.. You should know that this is so since they say there¹⁰³ and those of Second Tithe are not comparable. in the name of Rav Ḥisda, but they do not know whether from a tradition or a Mishnah, ‘even logs.’ Did we want to say that logs have no stability?

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ This paragraph also is in Ma`aser šeni ¹⁰² Since the dough contains contributions from both women, one does not have to try to allocate parts. This is quite obvious here; the argument refers to the difference between the rules of eruv ¹⁰³ In Babylonia. In this version the dough can be moved in the common domain even if only the firewood came from a person with a different Sabbath domain. Firewood cannot be bought with Second Tithe money and therefore cannot acquire the holiness of tithe. This shows that the rules of eruv

“Rebbi Jehudah excludes water since it lacks stability.” What is the difference between them¹⁰⁴? Hot water. He who said, because it lacks stability, it has stability¹⁰⁵. He who says because they are absorbed in the dough, it is not absorbed in the dish¹⁰⁶97b..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁴ The easiest interpretation of this statement presumes that a quote of Tosephta 4:6 is missing here, “Rebbi Jehudah excludes water since it it is absorbed in the dough” (and therefore not recognizable anymore, nor can it be tasted like spices.) Since we have one statement of R. Jehudah but two reasons given, the question arises whether there are practical implications resulting from the adoption of either the Mishnah’s or the Tosephta’s versions. ¹⁰⁵ Hot water is heated in a pot, it is never flowing (except in hot water springs which are not considered here.) ¹⁰⁶ Bread or cake is dry even if the dough absorbed much water; in a cooked dish the water produces sauce and still is visible. The Tosephta implies that a dish cooked with borrowed hot water may be transported only within the domain common to giver and recipient. Babli 39a, Eruvin

MISHNAH: A burning charcoal is like the feet of its owner but a flame may be everywhere¹⁰⁷ may light his candle on a fire belonging to another person having made a different eruv. The vessel containing the burning flame still can be moved in the entire Sabbath domain of its owner.. One does not commit larceny with burning charcoals of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one does not commit larceny¹⁰⁸ 5:15–16). Therefore with all other sources of the Mishnah one has to read: “one commits”. But the flame has no monetary value and using it does not require restitution and therefore not a sacrifice. But it still is illicit use and forbidden..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ A person who made an eruv ¹⁰⁸ Using anything valuable from the Sanctuary triggers the obligation of a reparation sacrifice and restitution of 125% of the value used (Lev.

HALAKHAH: ¹⁰⁹8:7 (Notes 139–144), Babli 29a.“Five things were said about burning charcoal and five about the flame. One commits larceny with the burning charcoal of the Temple; one may not use its flame but one cannot commit larceny with the latter¹⁰⁸ 5:15–16). Therefore with all other sources of the Mishnah one has to read: “one commits”. But the flame has no monetary value and using it does not require restitution and therefore not a sacrifice. But it still is illicit use and forbidden.. Burning charcoal of idolatry is forbidden, its flame is allowed. He who makes a vow not to use anything of another person may not use his burning charcoal but is allowed his flame. He who carries burning charcoal into the public domain¹¹⁰ is liable¹¹¹ but for the flame he is free of punishment. One makes the benediction¹¹² benediction at the end of the Sabbath when fire again can be lit. over the flame but not over glowing charcoal.” Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: If the charcoal was crackling one makes the benediction. Rebbi Joḥanan from Karṣion in the name of Rebbi Naḥum bar Simai: Only if {the flame} is jumping off¹¹³.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ Tosephta 4:7, Berakhot ¹⁰⁸ Using anything valuable from the Sanctuary triggers the obligation of a reparation sacrifice and restitution of 125% of the value used (Lev. ¹¹⁰ On the Sabbath. ¹¹¹ For a Sabbath violation. The flame essentially is immaterial; no minimal weight or size can be established for liability. ¹¹² The havdalah ¹¹³ More or less this is the definition of “crackling”.

MISHNAH: A private cistern is like the feet of the individual, but one of the townspeople is like the feet of the people of this town¹¹⁴, and of the pilgrims from Babylonia¹¹⁵ Chapter 2, Note 24. like the feet of the person filling.

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Each town dweller according to his own Sabbath domain. ¹¹⁵ Cisterns established on the route from Babylonia to Jerusalem; cf. Eruvin

HALAKHAH: [A well]¹²⁰ between two Sabbath domains. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one makes an iron wall for it¹²¹48a.. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even a partition made of reeds¹²², on condition that the water not flow in both directions. Rebbi Yudan said, they were more strict with their words than with words of the Torah¹²³83b.. Rebbi Ḥanina said, is it not {mixture of} kind in its own kind¹²⁴10:8, Note 107.? But they were strict with their words as with words of the Torah.

footnotes: ¹²⁰ Corrector’s text; the scribe’s cannot be read. Probably it was בּוֹר “cistern”, which does not fit the sequel. ¹²¹ To separate the waters of the different domains. Babli Eruvin ¹²² A porous symbolic fence used as a token of separation, in the spirit of R. Jehudah (Note 99). ¹²³ Since by the argument of Note 99 there should be no necessity for a separator of any kind. While rejected in the Yerushalmi, the fact that in certain rabbinic ordinances one is more restrictive than in the interpretation of biblical precepts is accepted in the Babli, Ketubot ¹²⁴ Which cannot be disregarded in the most minute amounts, cf. Terumot

This implies that if one finds a vessel on the road it is like the feet of the finder¹²⁵.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ This refers to the statement that water drawn from a well prepared for the pilgrims from Babylonia acquires the status of the person drawing it.

MISHNAH: If somebody had produce in another village and the people of that village made an eruv to come to him, they should not bring him his produce¹¹⁶ made by other people has no influence on his produce, which may not be moved at all if stored outside of his Sabbath domain. But he himself may make an eruv which includes the storage facility of his produce in his Sabbath domain.. But if he made an eruv, his produce has his status.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ Since produce has the status of its owner, an eruv

HALAKHAH: Rav and Samuel: one says, like the feet of the depositor¹²⁶. The other one says, they are like the feet of him they are deposited with. The Mishnah disagrees with him who says, they are like the feet of him they are deposited with. As we have stated, “If somebody had produce in another village and the people of that village made an eruv to come to him, they should not bring him his produce” If you would say, they are like the feet of him they are deposited with, they should bring him his produce. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the key was in the hands of the owner, or that he did not concede his powers to them before the start of the holiday. And what says this? “If he invited guests they may not carry away their parts unless through another person he gave them the right to their parts on the eve of the holiday”. Are they not like the feet of him they are deposited with from the moment that he gave them the rights to their parts.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ What is the status of things held in deposit for another person on the holiday? The problem is not solved by the Mishnaiot of the Chapter since by depositing the owner renounces temporarily his ability to dispose of the deposit. Since the discussion refers only to the opinion that the holder of the deposit is the one able to move it on the holiday, the Yerushalmi intimates that this is practice to be followed. The Babli concurs, 40a.

MISHNAH: If he invited guests¹¹⁷. they may not carry away their parts unless through another person he gave them the right to their parts on the eve of the holiday¹¹⁸. One does not water or slaughter prairie animals¹¹⁹ but one waters and slaughters domestic animals. What are domestic animals? Those that stay overnight in the village, prairie animals that stay overnight in the dust.

footnotes: ¹¹⁷ Who may reach his place only by making an eruv ¹¹⁸ He must give them ownership of their parts before the start of the holiday. But ownership of a gift is transferred only by acceptance by the recipient or his representative. On the other hand, one may act to the benefit of another person without the latter’s knowledge. Therefore the person who invites can ask a third party to formally accept the gifts to his guests for them without their knowledge before the start of the holiday. ¹¹⁹ מִדְבָּר is not “desert” but, based on the Aramaic meaning of דבר “to lead”, it is the place where animals are lead to graze, i. e., any place unfit for agriculture.

HALAKHAH: “The following are the prairie animals, those who leave on Passover and return with the rains. The following are the domestic ones, those who stay in the village overnight. Rebbi says, it is permitted to slaughter these and those which entered the Sabbath domain after dark. What are prairie animals? Those who grow up in the dust.¹²⁷”¹²⁸45b. Rebbi Zeira said, this implies, it is permitted to move a vessel which entered the Sabbath domain from outside the Sabbath domain. Rebbi Simeon bar Karsana in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: But only within four cubits¹²⁹ according to R. Zeirah, there still remains the rule that persons and things having been outside a Sabbath domain any time during Sabbath or holiday, upon (re-)entry may move or be moved only within 4 cubits. This rule is not waived.. As this, a Saracen honored Gamliel the Twin with truffles¹³⁰. He came and asked Rebbi Mana who said to him, receive them in your kitchen¹³¹ and eat them within four cubits.

footnotes: ¹²⁷ Rebbi considers the two categories enumerated in the Mishnah as domestic animals and therefore prepared as food; the only animals not in this category are those who never see a barn but stay outside also in winter. ¹²⁸ Tosephta 4:11, Babli 40a, Šabbat ¹²⁹ While there is no problem with muqṣeh ¹³⁰ On a holiday, and truffles are not found in town. ¹³¹ Greek μαγειρεῑον.