MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves three threads to start or one on the weave is liable. But the Sages say, whether at the beginning or at the end its measure¹ is two threads.

footnotes: ¹ The minimum which makes liable.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. ¹¹ 9:7, Notes 168–170. Rebbi Ulla said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is that by the third his work becomes permanent¹². Does Rebbi Eliezer hold with Rebbi Jehudah? As we have stated there¹³ 9:10.: “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three pin-stitches¹⁴. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.¹⁵” Rebbi Simon said, the reason of Rebbi Eliezer is there¹⁶ which is “here”; the statement of R. Eliezer in Šabbat is “there”. that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here¹⁷. it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rebbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday¹⁸.

footnotes: ¹¹ The first part of this paragraph has a parallel (with R. Simon quoted before R. Ulla) in Kilaim ¹² For R. Eliezer work is only forbidden on the Sabbath if it practically is irreversible. ¹³ Mishnah Kilaim ¹⁴ It is forbidden to put woolen and linen cloth together only if they are sewn together by at least three stitches (which do not have to be knotted at the ends). ¹⁵ This last clause also is a statement of R. Jehudah in the Mishnah but is irrelevant for the discussion here. ¹⁶ This statement is taken from Kilaim ¹⁷ If two pieces of cloth are connected only by two open stitches, they will separate by themselves and cannot create kilaim ¹⁸ It is clear from the plural used for “woven” that the last clause must read “sometimes one additional to two woven yesterday”. This is Rashba’s reading. R. Eliezer simply declares liability of a person who adds the third row on a loom, irrespective of the creation of the first two rows. Babli 105a.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked, what means “one on the weave”? One on top of two¹⁹, one on top of three. The rabbis here²⁰ are saying, one on top of two. If there was one large toga, at the start until he weave two threads of it, and at the end the most minute amount²¹. ²²“One who weaves two threads on top of the back²³, on top of the seam²⁴, in the most minute amount²¹ is liable. To what may this be compared? To a small belt where he is liable if he wove two threads in the width of three spaces²⁵.” And with woolen²⁶ warp²⁷. 16:13. Woolen warp always requires full three threads of woof to induce liability. it is as at the start, and this cloth²⁸ even at the end it is weave, and this veil²⁹ even at the end it is weave.

footnotes: ¹⁹ In the quotes of this passages in Rashba and Ritba, in their commentaries on the Babli 105a, this clause is missing. On the other hand, since the sentence is formulated as a question, the text as given here can be sustained, meaning that the rabbis of Caesarea questioned whether For Rebbi Eliezer weaving a single thread constitutes a Sabbath violation if it is additional to two or three existing threads. The answer is given by the Academy of Tiberias. ²⁰ Tiberias. ²¹ The “most minute amount” cannot be arbitrarily small even though it is noted in the Tosephta that it may be less than the hand-breadths stated in the Mishnah. ²² Tosephta 12:1 (ed. Liebermann), Babli 105a. ²³ In the Tosephta: הגס “the thick part”, the seam with which the cloth was started. ²⁴ On the sides or the end. ²¹ The “most minute amount” cannot be arbitrarily small even though it is noted in the Tosephta that it may be less than the hand-breadths stated in the Mishnah. ²⁵ A thread of the woof is counted fully if it covers three threads of the warp. ²⁶ Arabic نفش “wool”. ²⁷ Cf. Jud ²⁸ Straight cloth needs only one additional thread to induce liability. ²⁹ Cf. Chapter 4, Note 45.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes³⁰. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable³¹.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why³²? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it³³. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it³⁴? But because of completion of the work, as Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable³⁵. For if it were not so following Rebbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable³⁶ also is quoted in the Babli, Keritut 17a. Again R. Eliezer declares liable since an entire word was produced.. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages³⁷ is not needed; it only is needed for the Sages following R. Joshua who might make a distinction whether or not both letters were written on the Sabbath. who declare not liable.

footnotes: ³⁰ Since a Sabbath violation occurs only if the perpetrator’s intent was executed. If he intended to write a longer word and did not finish it, his intent was not satisfied. But if he starts writing a longer text, the moment he finishes the first word which he intended to write he becomes liable. ³¹ Tosephta 11:7 (ed. Liebermann). For R. Eliezer he is liable since he finished a word, for R. Joshua and his followers because he finished, i. e., because of “hitting with a hammer”. ³² The question is asked about R. Joshua. ³³ The reason may be either that for him only writing two letters creates a Sabbath violation and therefore adding one letter is not “hitting with a hammer” or it is that it can be seen that the new letter was written at another time than the first, but if the difference were not visible he would declare liability because of “hitting with a hammer”? ³⁴ Since cloth may be woven at different times without the interruption being visible, the reason must be that “hitting with a hammer” only applies to work done on the Sabbath itself. ³⁵ Chapter 12, Note 76. ³⁶ This baraita ³⁷ For R. Eliezer really the baraita

MISHNAH: He who makes two mashes, [attaching them] to the cross-pieces² or to the thrums³, of for a fine or coarse sieve, or for a basket, is liable. One who sews two stitches or who tears in order to sew two stitches⁴.

footnotes: ² Where the warp is attached to the cross-beams. ³ Greak καῖρος, ὁ. ⁴ Is liable.

HALAKHAH: 2³⁸. “The cross pieces,” the cross pieces³⁹. “The thrums,” καίρωμα⁴⁰. ⁴¹ Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: He who straightens out the sides on the Sabbath is liable because of sewing. He should have said, because of sewing and tying knots.

footnotes: ³⁸ Discussion of Mishnah 2. ³⁹ The same word in Aramaic. ⁴⁰ “Arrangement of slips or thrums.” ⁴¹ Copied from Chapter 7 (Note 416).

MISHNAH: He who tears in his rage or about a deceased person⁴⁴, any who spoil are not liable. The measure¹ for one who spoils in order to repair is as for repairing.

footnotes: ⁴⁴ It is a rabbinic obligation to tear one’s clothes in mourning for a close relative. The question is whether such tearing, which in Mishnah 3 is declared not to induce liability for a purification sacrifice, satisfies the duty of tearing or whether another tearing will be needed after the end of the Sabbath. ¹ The minimum which makes liable.

HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there⁴² 5:7, Menaḥot 5:3., “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one⁴³,” so one should say also here⁴⁴, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it⁴⁵ must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself⁴⁶, but here you caused it to him⁴⁷. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come⁴⁸ how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon⁴⁹?

footnotes: ⁴² Tosephta Pesaḥim ⁴³ For the unintentional Sabbath violation. ⁴⁴ It is a rabbinic obligation to tear one’s clothes in mourning for a close relative. The question is whether such tearing, which in Mishnah 3 is declared not to induce liability for a purification sacrifice, satisfies the duty of tearing or whether another tearing will be needed after the end of the Sabbath. ⁴⁵ Mishnah 3. The implication is that R. Jehudah would declare the person tearing his clothes a Sabbath violator since he declares liable for a Sabbath violation even if no particular intent was satisfied. ⁴⁶ By unintentional sinning he created the liability for a sacrifice. ⁴⁷ Either this means that the relative caused it by dying or the rabbis caused it by decreeing the duty to tear one’s clothes. ⁴⁸ Since a purification sacrifice cannot be brought voluntarily, the priests’ court has to confirm his liability. ⁴⁹ The Mishnah may as well be R. Jehudah’s who also will agree that damaging actions are not sanctionable on the Sabbath.

The colleagues asked before Rebbi Yose, did not Rebbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq, on Passover one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with a robbed mazzah? He told them, there in itself it is sinful, but here he committed a sin⁵⁰ is a forbidden object in his hand; neither the animal selected for the purification sacrifice nor the garment to be torn are intrinsically forbidden.. Would we say, if one brought a mazzah from a private to the public domain that he could not fulfill his obligation on Passover⁵¹?

footnotes: ⁵⁰ The robbed or stolen mazzah ⁵¹ Since the Sabbath violation has no connection with the Passover obligation, it is obvious that the answer is negative.

⁵² 1:9 (ח), Notes 218–223. In the Babli (Sanhedrin 6b, Bava Qamma 94a) and in Yerushalmi Sanhedrin1:1 (Notes 70–72) this is a tannaitic statement. Here, the argument is that a religious obligation, like eating mazzah on Passover, cannot be fulfilled in a sinful way. The Babli insists that not even the regular benedictions before and after eating can be recited if the food is stolen or robbed. It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rebbi Hoshaia said, because of he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes⁵³. 10:3. Usually, the verse is read to mean: “Certainly, the wicked one praises his own desires; he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal! The Tosephta (Sanhedrin 1:2) explains the verse as referring to judges who do not follow the rules.. Rebbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation⁵⁴? Rebbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed⁵⁵. Rebbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin⁵⁶. Rebbi Ila said, these are the commandments⁵⁷. 27:34.. If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds⁵⁸.

footnotes: ⁵² This is from Ḥallah ⁵³ Ps ⁵⁴ The robber certainly cannot recite a benediction for robbed food, but after he ate it he acquired the food (or if he robbed flour he acquired it by baking) and is no longer required to return the robbed piece but has to pay. In that stage, the robber seems to be in the same position as a buyer who is slow in paying and one does not understand why he should not recite grace. ⁵⁵ A good deed done by immoral means is no good deed at all and no religious obligation can be satisfied in this way. He declares his first argument faulty. ⁵⁶ He accepts R. Jonah’s original logic. ⁵⁷ Lev ⁵⁸ He sides with R. Jonah’s final position against R. Yose.

MISHNAH: The measure¹ of one who bleaches, or who beats flax, who dyes, or who spins, is double the width of a span⁵ as identical with the hand-breadth, the width of four thumbs, one sixth of a cubit or 1/48000 of a parasang.. The measure for him who weaves two threads is the length of a span⁶.

footnotes: ¹ The minimum which makes liable. ⁵ The distance between thumb and ring finger. The Kaliri in his composition on Yerushalmi talmudic measures (סלוק לפרשת שקלים) defines the siṭ ⁶ Weaving a ribbon of at least one hand-breadth in width is counted weaving cloth.

HALAKHAH: 4. There, we have stated⁵⁹: “One who brings out wood to cook an easily cooked egg,” and here you are saying so? There one who brings out in order to dye, but here about him who dyes.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Mishnah 9:5. The question as usual is not about the sentence which was quoted, which is the beginning statement of the Mishnah, but about the later statement, “shells of walnuts, skins of pomegranates, isatis, and madder to dye a small tissue like a hair net.” This is contrasted with the statement here in Mishnah 4 that tissue to be dyed creates liability already with three threads one hand-breadth long. The answer is that dyestuff and cloth to be dyed are different items.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Jehudah says, one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable, but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium⁷. Rebbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all vivaria are equal. The principle: In every case where it still needs catching, he is not liable, if it does not need catching he is liable.

footnotes: ⁷ The Mishnaic word is a transcription of the Latin.Animals trapped in a house are effectively caught. Animals held in a large enough vegetable garden or vivarium still have a chance to evade being grabbed.

HALAKHAH: 5⁶⁰ 3:1. The references to the Mishnah Beṣah as “there” are almost correct.. Rebbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah⁶¹ dos not follow Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated: “⁶² 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 liable⁷. The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted since we have stated there⁶³ 3:1, an anonymous statement.: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, 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: “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 there⁶³ 3:1, an anonymous statement., “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium⁶⁴ 1:5) that the only difference between prohibited work on Sabbath and Holiday refers to the preparation of food. It is explained in Beṣah 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 covered⁶⁵ 24a restricts this answer to vivaria.. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden⁶⁶? But here a large one, there a small one⁶⁷ 24a. 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 liable⁶⁸ 3:1. 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 Mishnah Beṣah 3:1.? 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”⁶⁹ 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 Beṣah 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: ⁶⁰ This paragraph, referring to Mishnah 5, is a copy from Halakhah Beṣah ⁶¹ The Mishnah in Beṣah. ⁶² Mishnah 5 here, a statement of R. Jehudah. ⁷ The Mishnaic word is a transcription of the Latin.Animals trapped in a house are effectively caught. Animals held in a large enough vegetable garden or vivarium still have a chance to evade being grabbed. ⁶³ Mishnah Beṣah ⁶³ Mishnah Beṣah ⁶⁴ 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 ⁶⁵ A courtyard covered by a roof is a house. The Babli 106b, Beṣah ⁶⁶ Nothing would grow in a vegetable garden devoid of sunlight. The answer cannot be correct. ⁶⁷ 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 106b, Beṣah ⁶⁸ This discussion refers to the last statement in Mishnah Beṣah ⁶⁹ 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.⁷⁰ 3:1; Babli Beṣah 24b. This paragraph has no connection with the laws of the Sabbath. It was added to the ms. by the corrector, obviously from a ms. representing a different spelling tradition.” Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Immi: a net of warp⁷¹. Samuel [said]⁷²., one may catch with a barrel⁷³. Rav said, the sluice of a water canal is permitted. Rebbi Yudan said, those between the plates⁷⁴.

footnotes: ⁷⁰ Tosephta Beṣah ⁷¹ 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. ⁷² Added from Beṣah ⁷³ Greek πίθος, ὁ. Scooping up fish from an aquarium using a wide-belly clay vessel is not catching. ⁷⁴ 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: If a deer enters a house, he who locked the house while it was there is liable. If two together locked, they are not liable. If one alone could not have locked it and two did it, they are liable; but Rebbi Simeon holds them not liable⁸.

footnotes: ⁸ For him no work done by more than one person ever creates liability.

HALAKHAH: 6. When she was doing it⁷⁵ 4:27. This paragraph is from Chapter 10, Note 49.. The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rav Ḥuna said, if one was healthy and one weak. If the sick person locked completely⁷⁶ but the healthy one incompletely, the sick one is liable but the healthy one is not liable. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a deer was running normally and he intended to lock the door for himself and he locked for himself and the deer, it is permitted⁷⁷. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he saw a child gurgling in a river⁷⁸ 84b, approves of catching the fish but not of intending to catch them. and he intended to bring him up together with a school of fish, it is permitted. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he was digging in a pile⁷⁹ and was intending to bring him⁸⁰ up together with a hoard of gold coins, it is permitted.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ Lev. ⁷⁶ This refers to Mishnah 6. A deer ran into a house, the healthy person closed the door but did not lock it. The sick person locked the door; he is liable even if he could not have closed the door by himself since the healthy person stopped before he incurred liability. ⁷⁷ If the deer was not chased and the person did not intend to catch it, the catch was unintentional and cannot be sanctioned. ⁷⁸ The child was drowning. It is an obligation for the onlooker to save him; anything he does in saving the baby is privileged. The Babli, Yoma ⁷⁹ The pile is the rubble from a collapsed house. There might be people buried under it alive. This is the same situation as the one described in the preceding case. ⁸⁰ A person buried under the collapsed house.

MISHNAH: If one sat in the door opening but did not fill it⁹ and a second person came and filled it, the second is liable. If the first one sat in the door and filled it when the second came and sat next to him, even though the first one got up and left, the first is liable and the second not liable. To what can this be compared? To one who locks his house in order to watch it and it turns out that a deer is kept inside¹⁰.

footnotes: ⁹ In this case the deer could escape if it passed by the person sitting in the door opening. While this is unlikely, legally the deer is not caught. ¹⁰ If the door was locked without the person knowing that a deer was inside there could be no liability since there could be no intention.

HALAKHAH: 7. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one feed them⁸¹? It comes following what we have stated there⁸² 24:3.: “one does not provide water to bees and to pigeons in a dovecot,” for one cannot provide for something which is not prepared⁸³. And here it is the same.

footnotes: ⁸¹ In the interpretation of S. Liebermann, the three questions of R. Shammai refer to the three statements of R. Yose ben R. Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna. This first question is about caring for a wild animal legally caught on the Sabbath. ⁸² Mishnah Šabbat ⁸³ Anything which is not potential food on the Sabbath.

Rebbi Shammai asked, may one put a vessel over it⁸⁴? It comes following ⁸⁵ what Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on the Sabbath one leans it against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one even may cover it with a vessel. Rebbi Shammai asked, may one tie it⁸⁶ with a rope? It comes following ⁸⁷ what Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. In any case where one is permitted to use the sides of an animal one is permitted to tie it; in any case where one is prohibited to use the sides of an animal one is prohibited to tie it.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ This refers to the third statement. If in rescuing a person from a collapsed house one finds a hoard of coins, may one cover these on the Sabbath? ⁸⁵ Chapter 4, Notes 40–41. The parallel formulation in Babli 42b is not applicable to the question raised here. ⁸⁶ The deer which was found in the house when it was locked. ⁸⁷ Chapter 5, Notes 41–42. Babli 154b.