MISHNAH: One who stores as seeds, as sample, or as medicine, if he takes out on the Sabbath he is liable for it in the most minute amount; but every other person is liable only for its quantity¹. If he brought it back he is liable only for its quantity².

footnotes: ¹ The preceding Mishnaiot spell out minimal amounts for different categories of objects. The underlying idea is that smaller amounts are of no value. If somebody takes out a smaller amount for a specific purpose, he shows that for him it is valuable and, therefore, the general rules do not apply to him. ² Since the objects were not used for the intended purposes, he now is no different from the general population.

HALAKHAH: “One who stores as seeds,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, is the Mishnah Rebbi Jehudah’s¹⁹? For Rebbi Jehudah said, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable²⁰. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi came in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, this comes only for the sample²¹., because the buyer already was satisfied²². But as to seeds and medicines even for the most minute amount he is liable. If one stored it and another took it out, he is not liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar declares him liable²³. Where do we hold? If he took it out on the second’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is not liable; if he took it out on the first’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is liable²⁴. But we must hold when it was not explained. The rabbis say, it is a common presumption²⁵ 5:5, Note 100. that he took it out on the second’s initiative; Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says that it is a common presumption that he took it out on the first’s initiative.

footnotes: ¹⁹ Since the Mishnah is anonymous and therefore practice, this decides that regarding the Sabbath one follows Rebbi Jehudah. ²⁰ Chapter 1, Note 221. ²¹ Greek δεῖγμα, -ατος, τό, Latin digma ²² R. Meïr, who disagrees with R. Jehudah about the special rule for craftsmen, will nevertheless agree that medicines, which are taken in minute amounts, and seeds, of which every single one counts, make the professional liable in any amount. Their only difference regarding the Mishnah is a sample after it has been shown to the client and is no longer needed, where R. Jehudah declares it the seller’s tool but R. Meïr treats it as regular property. ²³ Babli 91a in another formulation. ²⁴ In the Babli this seems to be only R. Simeon ben Eleazar’s opinion since he formulates: “Anything which is not usually stored, but somebody stored it for his use, and a second person came and took it out, the second becomes liable by the first’s intention.” ²⁵ This is one of the many meanings of חֲזָקָה: A common presumption to be used in the absence of information to arrive at a judgment. Cf. Ketubot

MISHNAH: He who takes out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold³, whether afterwards either he or another person took it out, is not liable since he did not complete his action in one piece. If a basket full of produce was put on the outer threshold, even if most of the produce is outside one is not liable until one take out the entire basket⁴.

footnotes: ³ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 66. ⁴ Since the threshold is not outside, there is no completed action by depositing the basket on the threshold, cf. Chapter 1, Note 1. Even if part of the basket is outside, since only the entire basket is moved and not its contents separately, the exact place of the contents is irrelevant, cf. Mishnah 9:7.

HALAKHAH: 2. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah is about a basket full of green melon and squash, where part of the food is inside and part outside²⁶. But a basket full of grain, when he took out in the volume of a dried fig he is liable. They said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s statement disagrees, as Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A crocheted cloth²⁷., R. Joḥanan is quoted directly that the Mishnah holds even for a basket full of mustard seeds. part of which was inside and part outside, if he took from one side and put it down on the other he is not liable. If he lifted it, only if he lifted it entirely at the same time.

footnotes: ²⁶ Discussion of the second part of Mishnah 2. He does not hold that the basket has the same status as its contents but only if all produce in the basket are both inside and outside the private domain is there no liability. Babli 92b. ²⁷ Which was used by bakers. In the Babli, loc. cit

²⁸ 8(18) 1975, pp. 1–14, A). The text is a continuation of the preceding paragraph. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: Explain it if it was broken open²⁹. He said to him, but did we not state ‘a basket”; can you say, a basket broken open? What about this? Nothing is moved in the public domain and becomes karmelit except a human³⁰, see Chapter 1, Note 73. The transport from a public domain to karmelit followed from one from the karmelit to the public domain does not create liability. If the basket could be considered karmelit, Ḥizqiah’s statement would be impossible. But since karmelit is a notion applicable only to real estate not readily accessible or to a human’s hand, Ḥizqiah’s restrictive interpretation of the Mishnah cannot be disproved.. Ḥizqiah³¹ said, if he took out a bundle from a private to the public domain and before he put it down already its head was higher than ten [hand-breadths], since it does not completely rest in the public domain he is not liable³². Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, if he took out a beam from a private to the public domain and before he put it down already its head was in another private domain³³, since it does not completely rest in the public domain he is not liable. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if a stone is in the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide³⁴, anybody who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it is liable. Samuel said, a basket full of produce put into the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide, anybody who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it is not liable. Do they disagree? Here, if it was turned on its side³⁵, there if it was not turned on its side. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if one moved a stone in the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four [hand-breadths] wide, how do you treat it? As one who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it, or from the public domain to a different public domain? The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If one piles five [hand-breadths] on top of five, how do you treat it? As one who moves from a private domain to karmelit, from karmelit to a private domain, from a private domain to another private domain³⁶?

footnotes: ²⁸ Here starts a Genizah fragment edited and commented on by S. Abramson (Kobez al Yad ²⁹ Ḥizqiah’s statement does not contradict the Mishnah if we assume that the container was torn open and it is possible to take produce from the public domain directly from the bottom of the basket without lifting over the rim. The objection is that then the vessel no longer is called “a basket”. ³⁰ For the notion of karmelit ³¹ A reads “R. Ḥizqiah”. But since his statement is followed by quotes from early Amoraim, the text of the Leiden ms. is preferable. ³² Cf. Chapter 1, Note 109. The air space over public domain is “exempt space” from which motion to and from private or public domains is not restricted. ³³ Even though it is a matter of dispute whether carrying from one private domain to another creates liability, it is clear that the beam was not deposited completely in the public domain and, therefore, no complete action was performed. Chapter 1, Note 1. ³⁴ The top of the stone becomes a private domain; it is not part of the exempt space over the public domain. Babli 99b,8a. ³⁵ In Samuel’s case, the basket is turned on its side; one may take things out without taking them over the rim of the basket. The fact that one of the sides of the basket is higher than 10 hand-breadths becomes irrelevant in this case. ³⁶ They carried great and important things; it seems impossible to conclude that anything small as a dried fig should have been carried with the Tabernacle.

MISHNAH: One who takes out either with his right hand, or with his left hand, or in his bosom, or on his shoulder, is liable since this was the carrying of the Kehatites⁵. 7:9.. On the back of his hand, on his foot, in his mouth, on his elbow, in his ear, or in his hair, or in his money belt⁶, -ae, f. whose opening is downward⁷, between his belt and his garment, or in the seam of his garment, in his shoe, or in his sandal, he is not liable since he did not take out in the way of takers-out.

footnotes: ⁵ They were carrying the sacred contents of the Tent of Meeting on their shoulders or in their hands; Num ⁶ Latin funda ⁷ In this case it cannot serve as a wallet since the money would fall out of the belt. This is a case of unprofessional use which, while prohibited, does not create liability.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yose asked: This implies that if somebody took out the volume of a dried fig on his shoulder, he is liable. Is that the carrying of the Kehatites³⁶? But it is written³⁷. 4:16. Since there it is not reported that the other Kehatites would carry his charges, it follows that he himself had to carry everything during their wanderings in the desert. Cf. Rashi 92a on the Mishnah., the office of Eleazar, Aaron’s son, the priest: The oil for illumination, the spice incense, the permanent flour offering³⁸. 6:12–16., and the anointing oil. The oil for illumination in his right hand, the spice incense in his left hand, the permanent flour offering of that day hanging on his arm. Where was the anointing oil? Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: a small flask he had on his money belt.

footnotes: ³⁶ They carried great and important things; it seems impossible to conclude that anything small as a dried fig should have been carried with the Tabernacle. ³⁷ Num ³⁸ The daily offering brought by the High Priest, Lev

If you say that he was unimportant, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written³⁹. 3:32.: The prince of the princes of the Levites, Eleazar, Aaron’s son. A duke⁴⁰ m. As in English, the Hebrew form is derived from the root, not the nominative. of dukes he was. The great Rebbi Jehudah said, he was the executive officer. “And why was his title Markol? Because he had the say about everything.⁴¹ 2:15.” Only there is no greatness in the king’s palace. Rebbi Levi said, it is written⁴². 6:3., the priest shall dress in linen garment … and remove the ashes, only there is no greatness in the king’s palace.

footnotes: ³⁹ Num ⁴⁰ Latin dux, ducis, ⁴¹ “Having a say about everything.” Tosephta Šeqalim ⁴² Lev

MISHNAH: One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable⁸. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable. In truth⁹ a woman who ties to her sinar¹⁰ 1:2, Note 115. According to Rashi, leather underpants; according to Maimonides a sash covering front and back. In modern Hebrew “apron”, following Maimonides. whether in front or back is liable since it is apt to move. Rebbi Jehudah says, the same holds for messengers¹¹, Greek πιττάκιον “note delivered from one government office to another; ticket, label, patch.”.

footnotes: ⁸ Explained in Chapter 1, Note 75. ⁹ Every rule introduced by “in truth” is unquestioned practice. ¹⁰ Cf. Soṭah ¹¹ פטק is Latin pittacium

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated⁴³ 4:3. A purification offering is possible only for the awareness that an inadvertent sin punishable with extirpation has been committed. In the interpretation of R. Simeon fron Shezur and R. Simeon (ben Yoḥai), for R. Eliezer, the awareness of a sin generates the liability, for R. Joshua only the awareness of the exact circumstances of the transgression causes liability, even if the category of the sin is not in doubt.: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur and Rebbi Simeon say, they did not disagree about anything which falls under the same appellation that he is liable. Where did they disagree? About something which is because of two appellations, where Rebbi Eliezer holds him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua holds him not liable.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, but not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable⁴⁴ disagreed about two appellations, it is clear that R. Eliezer declares liable but not R. Joshua. But not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Since the distinction is made only by two authors it is clear that there is an assumption that there is an opposing opinion which holds that R. Joshua frees from liability in any case where there is a doubt even if it is only in the way an intention was executed. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable according to both interpretations of R. Joshua (whose opinion is followed in general against R. Eliezer.). “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. But following him who said two appellations? Here it is one appellation and he is liable⁴⁵ there is a problem to explain this following R. Joshua. But following him who said two appellations it is obvious that this Mishnah cannot follow R. Joshua. Here it is one appellation and he is liable, according to everybody in the interpretation of RR. Simeon from Shezur and R. Simeon.. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: it is a case of Tannaim⁴⁶. He who says there “liable”, also here “liable”; he who says there “not liable”, also here “not liable”.

footnotes: ⁴³ Mishnah Keritut ⁴⁴ R. Eleazar rejects the interpretation of Mishnah 4 that a person who intended to carry something in front but in fact carried it on his back did not execute his intention whereas one who intended to carry something on his back but in fact carried it in front did better than intended. Then the question arises why in one case is there liability but not in the other. If we say that carrying in front or back are two different appellations within the one category of “taking out”, then we should expect R. Eliezer to declare liability in both cases and R. Joshua no liability in either case. Therefore the Mishnah follows R. Eliezer in its first statement, R. Joshua in the second. Since both statements are anonymous, one would expect consistency. The text has to be read as follows:Following him who said that they ⁴⁵ Here one reads: “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation ⁴⁶ It is possible to read the entire Mishnah as following R. Joshua as required by our practice, but the second statement follows RR. Simeon from Shezur and R. Simeon in their interpretation of R. Joshua’s position and the first statement follows their opponents.

“In truth.” Rebbi Eliezer said, any place where “in truth” was stated it is practice going back to Moses on Sinai⁴⁸ 2:2 Note 36, Terumot 2:1 Note 16, the tradent is R. Eleazar..

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Babli 92b. In the two other quotes of this statement, Kilaim

MISHNAH: He who takes out foodstuffs less than a measure in a vessel is not liable even for the vessel since the vessel is an accessory to it, for a living person on a bier he is not liable¹² even for the bier since the vessel is an accessory to him. For a dead person on a bier he is liable, and so for the volume of an olive from a dead person, or the volume of an olive from a carcass, or of a lentil from a crawling animal¹³ one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable¹⁴. He who takes out a loaf into the public domain is liable. If two together took it out they are not liable¹⁵. If one alone is unable to take it out and two took it out they are liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares them not liable.

footnotes: ¹² A living being, not only a human, “carries himself”; carrying a live person always is an act performed by two persons, the carrier and the carried and, therefore, creates no liability. ¹³ I. e., the minimum volume which creates impurity. ¹⁴ As work not needed for its own purpose. ¹⁵ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 1. R. Simeon holds that even in the latter case there can be no liability attached to work done by several people in common by biblical decree; see in the Halakhah on Mishnah 5.

HALAKHAH: When she was doing it⁴⁹. 4:27, establishing the qualifications for a purification offering. The feminine refers to נֶפֶשׁ “a person”. The singular both of verb and suffix shows that the verse refers to a single person and a single action. Babli 93a; cf. Horaiot 1:1 Note 8, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parashah 7(4,9). The paragraph refers to Mishnah 6 which frees from liability two or more people engaged in transporting on the Sabbath.. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rebbi Joshua the Southerner said before Rebbi (Yasa) [Yose]⁵⁰ in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: A weaver’s beam, Rebbi declares not liable, but Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon said, he is liable⁵¹. Rebbi said to him, so I heard from your father. He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served him sitting. But was Rebbi the student of Rebbi Simeon (bar) [ben] Yoḥai⁵²? Was he not the student of Rebbi Jacob bar (Qodshai) [Qorshai]⁵³ 10:1 (37b line l. 62) the scribe first wrote קורשיי but then corrected it to קודשיי. In the Babli, Horaiot 13b, the early prints and the Munich ms. read קדשי (cf. Diqduqe Soferim,Abodah sarah etc. Horaiot p. כג, Note ח֜.) R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon indicates that from the incidental remarks of his father he learned more than Rebbi did in his formal studies.? But so he must have said to him, He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served your teacher sitting. When Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon came to the house of assembly, Rebbi’s face darkened⁵⁴. His father told him, it is correct so, for he is a lion son of a lion, but you are a lion son of a jackal⁵⁵ meṣi aˋ 84b.. When (Rebbi Eleazar) [he]⁵⁶ died, Rebbi sent to ask his wife in marriage. She said to him, a vessel which was used in holiness should be used in a profane way?

footnotes: ⁴⁹ Lev ⁵⁰ Since R. Joshua the Southerner was a contemporary of R. Yose, two generations after R. Yasa, the reading of A in [brackets] has to be accepted. ⁵¹ Cf. Babli 93b, where this tradition is rejected at the end. The weaver’s beam usually is operated by a single person; what is the situation if it was carried into the public domain by two people? It can be carried by one person; by the criterion of Mishnah 5 there should be no liability. But since the beam is large, it is inconvenient to be carried by one person; there is an argument to be made that there is liability.The spelling of A is correct in normative grammar. ⁵² In the Leiden ms., this sentence is a corrector’s addition. The spelling “bar Yoḥai” is a clear Babylonism; the reading of A in [brackets] is preferable. ⁵³ Probably the reading of the ms. in (parentheses) is preferable. In Pesaḥim ⁵⁴ Because R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon always tried to prove him wrong. ⁵⁵ Babli Bava ⁵⁶ The reading of A in [brackets] is preferable.

6. Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, what you are saying is about when the vessel is needed, as for mulberries. But if they do not need their vessel he is liable also for the vessel⁵⁷.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ This refers to Mishnah 5, showing that the Halakhah reads Mishnah 6 before Mishnah 5, as in the Babli. The vessel is secondary to the food only if it is necessary. If the fruits are so large that the vessel is not needed, the vessel no longer is an accessory. The Babli (93b bottom) has a different take on the problem. The word which illustrates the second alternative in A is unexplained; the editor of A reports that the reading is uncertain.

“A living person on a bier is not liable¹² even for the bier,” for the living carries himself⁵⁸ 103a; Yoma 66b.. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody⁵⁹? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rebbi Ila said, also Rebbi Simeon agrees to this. Rebbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct⁶⁰. Rebbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog⁶¹. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated⁶². What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rebbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog⁶¹.

footnotes: ¹² A living being, not only a human, “carries himself”; carrying a live person always is an act performed by two persons, the carrier and the carried and, therefore, creates no liability. ⁵⁸ Babli 94a, 141b; Eruvin ⁵⁹ The questioner refers the remark at the end of Mishnah 5, “R. Simeon declares not liable” to the entire statement. ⁶⁰ Chapter 9, Note 136. How can R. Simeon require the volume of an olive of a corpse since it smells badly and is forbidden for usufruct? ⁶¹ Gentile corpses are not forbidden for usufruct. Therefore neither of R. Simeon’s exceptions applies. ⁶² Therefore he does not agree that the volumes may be combined since the minimum amount for a corpse is the volume of an olive but for carcass meat or crawling animal it is a dog’s mouthful.The reading of A, “the volume of a lentil”, seems to be a scribal error. Cf. Babli 94b. ⁶¹ Gentile corpses are not forbidden for usufruct. Therefore neither of R. Simeon’s exceptions applies.

MISHNAH: He who takes off his fingernails one with the other or with his teeth, and similarly his hair, or his mustache, or his beard, and similarly the woman who braids, or who puts on kohl, or puts on make-up, Rebbi Eliezer declares liable for a purification sacrifice but the Sages say because of Sabbath rest¹⁶. One who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is liable¹⁷, with no hole is not liable, but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable in either case¹⁸.

footnotes: ¹⁶ “Sabbath rest” always means “rabbinic prohibition”.Rashi on the Mishnah quotes two interpretations of פוקסת: “putting on make-up” (Yerushalmi), “combing the hair” (Babli). The latter meaning may be connected to Arabic فقس “to draw somebody by the hair.” ¹⁷ Because it is connected to the ground by the hole at the bottom, plucking from the flower pot is harvesting. If there is no hole at the bottom, plucking is harvesting only rabbinically, not creating liability. ¹⁸ If the root of the plant reaches the hole, even R. Simeon agrees that plucking from the flower pot is harvesting.

HALAKHAH: ⁶³ Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: Where do they differ? If he himself took them but if another took them they are disgusting⁶⁴. The words of the Sages, Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Naḥum in the name of Rav, he is never liable unless he take them with a grooming knife⁶⁵ p. 137, Note 31, supported by the reading of A. In the Babli, the word appears as גנוסטר. In contrast to the Yerushalmi which requires a professional tool, the Babli declares liability for the use of any tool, 94b.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: The one who braids is liable because of building⁶⁶. This follows what Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Banaya: At our place they call builder one who is plaiting⁶⁷61a, explaining Gen. 2:22, not that God built up the rib, but that He braided the side (the female side of the human created as Siamese twin, Gen. 1:27.). Rebbi Zeˋira said, would it not be reasonable that it should be because of weaving? The argument of Rebbi Zeˋira is inverted, for there said Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, one who plaits three hairs of a human is liable because of weaving; Rebbi Zeˋira said, is it not spinning rather than weaving? And here he says so! There if they are few, here for many⁶⁸. That is what you say about a human, but for an animal it is pure, as it was stated: One who makes a belt⁶⁹, -ae, f.. under the heart, to beautify, or to fasten the bags⁷⁰, -ii,n.., to hang it around an animal’s neck, is pure⁷¹ 4:14.. That is, for simple ones. But if the are folded, whether for human or for animal they are impure⁷². The one who applies kohl is liable because of writing;⁷³ amounts to writing the letter ס or the paleo-Hebrew ˋayin, o. the one who puts on make-up is liable because of dyeing⁶⁶.

footnotes: ⁶³ Discussion of Mishnah 7. In A simply a note: (new) Mishnah. ⁶⁴ Since it is unprofessional to trim somebody else’s fingernail with his fingers, even R. Eliezer must agree that there is no liability created. Babli 94b. ⁶⁵ Greek κνηστήρ, -ῆρος, ὁ. S. Liebermann, Tosefta kiFshutah Šabbat ⁶⁶ Babli 94b/95a. ⁶⁷ Berakhot ⁶⁸ Plaiting a few hairs is like spinning, braiding a full head of hair is like weaving. ⁶⁹ Latin fascia ⁷⁰ Latin marsupium ⁷¹ This has nothing to do with the rules of the Sabbath. It is a side remark that only vessels and implements for human use are susceptible to impurity, not anything manufactured for exclusive use as decoration of animals. Cf. Tosephta Kelim Bava batra ⁷² The moment anything can be used as a container it is usable for a human and therefore subject to impurity even if used for animals. ⁷³ Since circling the eye with kohl ⁶⁶ Babli 94b/95a.

Isaac bar Orion said, where do they disagree⁷⁴ 7:6, Notes 80–83.? If he did not pluck it off over the hole. But if he plucked it off over the hole also Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If everything was in the Land but the hole outside the Land⁷⁵? It turns out that you may say what was questionable for Rebbi Jeremiah was obvious for Isaac bar Orion. These are it⁷⁶ which has become unintelligible. The text referred to reads in full: It was stated: “the only difference between a flower pot without a hole and one with a hole regards preparation for impurity.” That is for Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis there are others. (Babli 95a/b,). But there are others! “A flower pot with a hole sanctifies in a vineyard, one without a hole does not sanctify⁷⁷ 7:8 in the independent Mishnah mss., not in the Mishnah of the Yerushalmi. Growth of produce other than vines in a vineyard makes everything forbidden for usufruct; Deut. 22:9..” “A flower pot with a hole cannot prepare plants, one without a hole prepares.⁷⁸ 2:10. Food can become impure only after the harvest and only after having been wetted, cf. Demay Chapter 2, Note 141. A plant in a pot with hole is a plant in the earth and nothing can make it prepared for impurity at this stage. A plant in a pot without hole is already harvested since it can be plucked on the Sabbath without fear of prosecution; if it is watered, it becomes subject to possible impurity.” “He who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is liable, from one without a hole he is not liable.¹⁷” Rebbi Yose referred to it as anonymous statement, Rebbi Ḥanania quoted it in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac⁷⁹ˋserot 5:2 (Note 46): Rebbi La.: The Torah extended the purity of growing plants⁸⁰. 11:37. This explains why R. Simeon agrees with the rabbis that a flower pot with hole is immune from impurity and is not comparable to a pot with hole: The verse insists that anything sown in any way acceptable in agriculture is pure. The main point of the argument is lost in the quote here (which again shows that its origin is in Kilaim). The “etc.” hides the final statement of the verse: it is pure. The quote of the verse also is truncated in the Babli, 95b.: If any of their cadavers falls on any sown seed apt to be sown, etc.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ The disagreement between the rabbis and Rebbi Simeon about harvesting from flower pots on the Sabbath; cf. Notes 17,18. The main part of the paragraph is from Kilaim ⁷⁵ This has nothing to do with the rules of the Sabbath but with agricultural laws, such as heave, tithes, and the Sabbatical year, which are intrinsically restricted to growth of the Holy Land. If the rabbis consider a flower pot agricultural land, what is the status of such a pot standing in the Land but drawing its moisture from outside the Land? For Isaac bar Orion obviously the pot belongs to the outside. ⁷⁶ This is a shortened reference to the text in Kilaim ⁷⁷ A part of Mishnah Kilaim ⁷⁸ Mishnah Uqeṣin ¹⁷ Because it is connected to the ground by the hole at the bottom, plucking from the flower pot is harvesting. If there is no hole at the bottom, plucking is harvesting only rabbinically, not creating liability. ⁷⁹ In another quote of this sentence, in Ma ⁸⁰ Lev