MISHNAH: With what may one kindle and with what may one not kindle? One kindles neither with bast¹, nor with raw flax, nor with silk noil² 9:2 (Note 33) as “imperial אגבין or אנבין”; the Babli 20b agrees that it is some kind of silk worn by exalted personalities., nor with tow-cotton³, nor with desert wick⁴., nor with green from the surface of water⁵; not with pitch, nor with wax, nor with qīq oil⁶, nor with oil to be burned⁷ may not be burned on a day on which defective sacrifices may not be burned, i. e., Sabbath or holiday., nor with fat tail⁸. 3:9) may not be eaten., nor with fat⁹. Naḥum the Mede says one may kindle with cooked fat¹⁰, but the Sages say whether cooked or uncooked one does not kindle with it.

footnotes: ¹ According to the Yerushalmi, bast of a kind of willow, Greek λύγος, ἡ. The Babli, 20b, defines as cedar bast. ² The Yerushalmi defines both here and in Kilaim ³ According to the Yerushalmi a wick made of a substance which is imitation wool. According to the Babli, willow bast. ⁴ According to Rashi’s Commentary to the Babli, a wick made of nettle, ortie ⁵ Dried algae. The list up to here contains materials prohibited as wicks since they do not absorb oil well; if the light starts to flicker one will be impelled to intervene and shake the light to improve its quality; this would be a desecration of the Sabbath by biblical standards. The following list contains fuels which are not well absorbed by any wick and excluded for the same reason. ⁶ According to one opinion in the Babli (21a), accepted by Maimonides, castor oil. According to the Yerushalmi and the first opinion in the Babli, oil produced from a bird (according to R. Saadia Gaon, the pelican). ⁷ Olive oil given as heave to a Cohen which became impure and therefore cannot be consumed. The Cohen may use it as fuel. But since it is holy, it is subject to the (rabbinic) rule that sancta ⁸ A sheep’s tail which as a potential sacrifice (Lev ⁹ Any animal fat which is forbidden for human consumption. ¹⁰ Refined lard which may be supposed to burn with a steady flame.

HALAKHAH: “With what may one kindle and with what may one not kindle? One kindles neither with bast¹.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, λύγος. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Lia³⁰, δάδινον³¹. They said, these two are identical³².

footnotes: ¹ According to the Yerushalmi, bast of a kind of willow, Greek λύγος, ἡ. The Babli, 20b, defines as cedar bast. ³⁰ He is R. La (Ilaï) mentioned at other occasions. ³¹ δάδινος, -η, -ον, “of pine wood”; δαδινίον “splinter of pine wood”, I. Löw’s interpretation. Musaphia reads דרינון which he takes to be Greek δρύϊνον “of oak” but Jastrow emends to קדרינון κέδρινον “of cedar” to coincide with the explanation of the Babli. Lieberman accepts Jastrow’s emendation on basis of the Geniza fragment edited by Ginzberg (p. 70): ליא .. דינון. Since the reading דינון clearly is common to the Leiden ms. and the Genizah text, Löw’s reading has to be accepted. ³² In any case, one speaks of a wick made of wood bast, from the inside of the bark.

“Nor with raw flax,” Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Phineas, flax which was not cleansed, as you say, the uncleaned flax will be tinder³³ 1:31. The usual translation is: the treasure will become tinder..

footnotes: ³³ Is.

“Nor with silk noil² 9:2 (Note 33) as “imperial אגבין or אנבין”; the Babli 20b agrees that it is some kind of silk worn by exalted personalities.,” imperial אנבין³⁴ 9:2 Note 33 the conjecture that it might mean “imperial purple”.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I asked all seafarers and they told me that it is called kulka.

footnotes: ² The Yerushalmi defines both here and in Kilaim ³⁴ Cf. in Kilaim

“Nor with tow-cotton³,” ˋīrānītā³⁵.

footnotes: ³ According to the Yerushalmi a wick made of a substance which is imitation wool. According to the Babli, willow bast. ³⁵ Diminutive of Aramaic עירא, אירא “wool”.

“Nor with desert wick⁴.,” as its meaning³⁶.

footnotes: ⁴ According to Rashi’s Commentary to the Babli, a wick made of nettle, ortie ³⁶ Made from some desert plant.

“Nor with green from the surface of water⁵;” water flax.

footnotes: ⁵ Dried algae. The list up to here contains materials prohibited as wicks since they do not absorb oil well; if the light starts to flicker one will be impelled to intervene and shake the light to improve its quality; this would be a desecration of the Sabbath by biblical standards. The following list contains fuels which are not well absorbed by any wick and excluded for the same reason.

“Also not with pitch, nor with wax³⁷,” up to here about wicks, from here on about fuels.

footnotes: ³⁷ Wax is forbidden as wick, not as fuel. Babli 20b.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because the fire is [not]³⁹, Alfasi Chapter 2; required by the context. The prohibited wicks are those which do not sufficiently draw fuel. drawn after it and he forgets and removes the wick; and in addition because the fire was not kindled on most of the fuel⁴⁰. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, does this mean that the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel? There came Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel. The colleagues objected, is there not wax⁴¹ “wax” (S. Lieberman following Qorban haEdah). where the fire does not have to reach most of the fuel? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected, is there not a lantern⁴² where the fire does not have to reach most of the fuel? Rebbi Shammai said, did not Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Jehudah say in the name of Rav⁴³: Four pyres are in a minimal amount. A pyre of pressed-out olives, a pyre of manure, a pyre of fat, a pyre of pits are in a minimal amount. Also from the following, that Rebbi Taḥlifa asked Rav Ḥisda, did not the rabbi teach us, on a Sabbath which happened during Ḥanukkah, when it is forbidden to check a coin in the Ḥanukkah light⁴⁴ 20:6). On the Sabbath one may not check coins at all; the reference to the Sabbath has to be deleted. It seems that the Yerushalmi holds in contrast to the Babli (21b) that wicks and fuels forbidden for the Sabbath are also forbidden for Ḥanukkah. Since a Ḥanukkah light cannot be used for anything but exhibition, if it goes out one does not have to rekindle. Therefore the quality of the wick should not be a decisive factor; the first of R. Joḥanan’s reasons does not apply.; there he will not forget and remove the wick. Therefore the reason can only be that the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel.

footnotes: ³⁹ Added from the quote in Naḥmanides Milḥamot Hashem ⁴⁰ Cf. Chapter 1, Note 428. ⁴¹ Read קירה, Latin cera ⁴² In Babylonian Aramaic the word is עַשָּׁשִׁית. In a lantern, in contrast to a torch, there is a controlled burn. ⁴³ Chapter 1, Note 425. ⁴⁴ The basic institution of Ḥanukkah lights is that they are exclusively exhibition objects which cannot be used for any other purpose (Babli 21b; Soferim

Mishnah: “Nor with qīq oil⁶.” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Lia, κισσός⁴⁵. Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Jehudah, it is a bird by the name of qīq. Rebbi Ismael stated, and the qāât, this is the qīq⁴⁶ 63a, see Diqduqe Soferim ad loc. Lev. 11:18, Deut. 14:17..

footnotes: ⁶ According to one opinion in the Babli (21a), accepted by Maimonides, castor oil. According to the Yerushalmi and the first opinion in the Babli, oil produced from a bird (according to R. Saadia Gaon, the pelican). ⁴⁵ “Ivy”. ⁴⁶ قوق “pelican”. Babli Ḥulin

“Nor with oil to be burned⁷ may not be burned on a day on which defective sacrifices may not be burned, i. e., Sabbath or holiday..” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is forbidden to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath⁴⁷, may not be burned on the Sabbath. Babli 23b, Menaḥot 46b.. But have we not stated⁴⁸: “One starts a fire at the fire place in the heating chamber, but outside the Temple only if the fire has started burning on most of the logs.” Rebbi Yose said, it is written about the Sabbath, do not do any work⁴⁹ 20:10. Here starts a new Genizah leaf, Ginzberg p. 71 (G).; it is done automatically. But here the Torah said that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, not to speak of the Sabbath. What did you see that you said so? ⁵⁰ 12:10. The mention of two “mornings” implies that different times are implied. Babli 24b, 133a, Pesaḥim 83b, Temurah 4b. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 6, end, dR. Simeon benYoḥai Bo p. 14.You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire. After two mornings, one the morning of the 15 and the other the morning of the 16. And it is written, what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day⁵¹. 7:17. The sacrifice may be eaten for two days and the intervening night..

footnotes: ⁷ Olive oil given as heave to a Cohen which became impure and therefore cannot be consumed. The Cohen may use it as fuel. But since it is holy, it is subject to the (rabbinic) rule that sancta ⁴⁷ Since impure heave, which belongs to the class of disabled sancta ⁴⁸ Mishnah 1:15 (Notes 22,23). ⁴⁹ Ex. ⁵⁰ Ex. ⁵¹ Lev

May one light a fire under a pyre of leavened material⁵² 12:19). The elimination has to be before the time allotted to the slaughtering of the Passover sacrifice (Ex. 23:18, 34:25). Therefore the question must be about a large pile of leavened matter which is set on fire at noontime of Passover Eve but which will be completely consumed on the holiday, after nightfall.? For him who infers it from remainder⁵³ be eliminated by burning since this is the prescribed manner of disposing of sacrificial meat kept longer than the time allotted to its consumption. Pesaḥim 2:1 28c l. 62, Babli 27b. Since leftover Passover meat may be burned only after the holiday, he also must forbid burning of leavened matter on the holiday., it is forbidden. But for him who does not infer it from remainder, it is permitted. Rav Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥisda: this implies that it is permitted to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath⁵⁴. But did we not state⁵⁵, “one does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday,” because of a holiday which falls on Friday⁵⁶. But then one should not light oil to be burned in the night since one does not burn sancta in the night⁵⁷ since the only sancta which may be burned are excess sacrifices of the preceding day whereas invalid sancta must be burned during daytime. There is no restriction on the use of “oil to be burned”.! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they followed the argument of Rebbi Ismael⁵⁸ (Note 50).. Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night⁵⁹. 12:3): And on the eighth day, the prepuce of his flesh shall be circumcised. But if the baby was sick or for any other reason could not be circumcised on the eighth day, it may be circumcised at any time afterwards. In Babylonian sources (Yebamot 72a/b, Tosephta Šabbat 15:9) this opinion is ascribed to R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon, two generations after R.. Ismael., so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night. Where do you have oil to be burned whose time has passed⁶⁰? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: Since it became impure it is as if its time had passed.

footnotes: ⁵² There is a biblical obligation to eliminate all leavened matter before Passover (Ex. ⁵³ He is R. Jehudah who insists that leavened matter must ⁵⁴ Since R. Jehudah is a minority of one. ⁵⁵ Mishnah 2:2. Since it says “on the holiday”, one could infer that on the Sabbath it is permitted. Then why is “oil to be burned” listed in Mishnah 1? ⁵⁶ It is true that in biblical law “oil to be burned” may be used for lighting on the Sabbath since the fire would be started on Friday when it is permitted; it only is forbidden rabbinically because on a Friday which is a holiday it would be forbidden. ⁵⁷ This is a new proof that the reason cannot be that “oil to be burned” must be treated as a sanctum ⁵⁸ As reported in the Mekhiltot ⁵⁹ It says (Lev ⁶⁰ There are no time restrictions for the disposal of “oil to be burned”.

Rebbi Yose⁶¹ stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: From where that all those to be circumcised should only be circumcised during daytime? The verse says, And on the day⁶². 12:3. Babli Yebamot 72b, Sifra Tazriaˋ Pereq 1(1). The argument from the addition “and” is characteristically R. Aqiba’s, opposed by R. Ismael.. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, is that so? All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night⁶³ 90b, Yoma 6a, 87a.. A woman after her period whose time has passed⁶⁴ 4:1 Note 3. Babli Niddah 67b. immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre⁶⁵, a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There⁶⁶ 67b. There, the reason is given “because of the discipline of her daughter”, that she should learn the rules clearly. they say, even one whose time has passed, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of our rabbis⁶⁷ immersing herself normally during daytime. We shall say that her time had passed.

footnotes: ⁶¹ Read with G (which is very fragmentary at this point): R. Yasa. ⁶² Lev ⁶³ Babli 121a, Pesaḥim ⁶⁴ After the first evening she could have immersed herself after her period; cf. Niddah ⁶⁵ As practice to be followed. ⁶⁶ In Babylonia, where the statement was attributed to R. Joḥanan; Niddah ⁶⁷ The household of R. Jehudah Nesia. The deviation of Galilean from Babylonian practice is confirmed.

A woman after her period who was immersed by accident, Shammai in the name of Rav: she is pure for her house but impure for purities⁶⁸. In this opinion, an intent to become pure by immersion is needed only to be able to prepare pure food (“purities”) whereas to be permitted to her husband (“pure for her house”) she only has to be immersed since in the relevant biblical paragraph (Lev. 15:19–24) immersion is explicitly required only of people coming in contact with movables on which she sat during her period of impurity. The opposing opinion requires intent for any purification. Babli Ḥulin 31a.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, she is impure both for her house and purities. What is the reason? It should be washed a second time and will be pure⁶⁹. 15:59, about impurity of textiles. The remark “a second time” is taken as indication that the second washing has to follow the rules of the first; Babli Ḥulin 31b. A different interpretation in Sifra Tazriaˋ Pereq 16(11). Since the first time it was intentionally, also the second time it must be intentionally. And from where that the first time it was intentionally? The Cohen has to order that they should wash⁷⁰. 13:54.. Intentionally.

footnotes: ⁶⁸ She unintentionally fell into water which qualifies as a miqweh ⁶⁹ Lev ⁷⁰ Lev

And so we see that rabbis are early for intercalations. Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is an obligation to be early, to hasten in commandments⁷¹.

footnotes: ⁷¹ This paragraph presents problems. It seems that the beginning sentence should be at the end. Then the meaning is that Rebbi (not Rav) Naḥman requires the husband to direct his household to light Sabbath lights, and therefore begin the observance of the Sabbath, somewhat before the time of sundown since in the fulfilling of divine commandments one has to show eagerness. As an example it is noted that the rabbis who form the court which decrees intercalations always arrive early for the deliberations. This is a commentary on the last statement of the last Mishnah in the Chapter.

⁷² 11:7, Notes 141–153. The present paragraph originates in Ševiˋit 4:2, Notes 38–42. The meaning is that if a rabbinic stringency, such as not permitting occasional use of oil to be burned by lay persons even if it is to the advantage of the Cohen, falls into disuse in a time of emergency, it remains eliminated even after the emergency has passed.“An Israel woman who comes to a priestly woman to get fire dips her wick into oil to burn and lights.” Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of the house of Rebbi Yannai: It was a time of wolf packs; there was no court which disestablished. As it was said there, there was no court which disestablished. And here was no court which disestablished.

footnotes: ⁷² This and the following paragraphs discussing the term “not with oil to be burned” in Mishnah 1 are from Terumot

⁷³ 11:7 (Notes 137–139, 143–145).“If cattle of a Cohen was passing⁷⁴: “was fed at the Israel’s”. In the Tosephta, היה עומד אצל ישראל “was standing at the Israel’s.” The reading here, עובר, is a misreading of the Tosephta text. at an Israel’s, or the garment of a Cohen being woven at an Israel’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If an Israel and a Cohen were partners in a store, the Israel may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor or down into the store in the business of the Cohen, but not the Israel’s⁷⁵. If a Cohen came to an Israel to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after the Cohen left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.”⁷⁶ 10:9. Rebbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at R. Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a Cohen, but not for an Israel”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rebbi Ḥinena said, by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

footnotes: ⁷³ This paragraph is a composite of two paragraphs in Terumot ⁷⁴ In Terumot ⁷⁵ Not the Israel’s private business. Everything the Israel does in the business is also for the benefit of his partner. ⁷⁶ Tosephta Terumot

⁷⁷ 11:7 (Notes 146–153); see the Notes there for the problematic character of the text. S. Lieberman conjectures that the question was not about oil to be burned but that he dipped the wick in heave vinegar to singe it as noted in the discussion of Mishnah 5 (Note 150) and R. Immi permitted it. Ada the nurse asked Rebbi Immi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rebbi Immi took a wick, Rebbi Ila did not take a wick⁷⁸. Did Rebbi Ila not agree with Rebbi Immi? Rebbi Ila thought because of robbery because the nurse will spoil the consecrated food⁷⁹.

footnotes: ⁷⁷ Slightly reformulated from Terumot ⁷⁸ Dipped in oil to be burned. ⁷⁹ Robbing the Cohanim of their heave by marginally permitted use.

Gamliel the twin asked Rebbi Yasa: May one add profane oil and light? He said to him, Rebbi Hoshaia stated only⁸⁰ that one is not required to squeeze it out.

footnotes: ⁸⁰ The Tosephta quoted earlier (Note 76).

Rebbi Abbahu said, Jonathan ben Akhmai did teach me: The daughter of a Cohen standing on Sabbath eve with a light filled with oil to burn⁸¹, adds some profane oil and lights. Rebbi Zeˋira said, what is the nature of this? He said to him, he was a great personality, well versed in the Mishnah. Rebbi Ḥiyya from Kefar Teḥumin explained this to Rabbi and he appointed him rabbi.

footnotes: ⁸¹ He restricts the prohibition of the Mishnah to the case that pure oil to be burned is used Friday night, not if it is mixed with even a minute quantity of profane oil. The Babli does not mention this.

⁸²“Nor with fat.” Rav Berona said, one mixes some oil with it and kindles⁸³. Yose asked, where do we hold? If it was made into a paste, even if he did not mix it with oil, as Samuel stated, any which one turns into a fluid and it does not jell is a paste. But if it was not made into a paste, even if he mixes with oil. There came Rav⁸⁴ Ḥananiah, Rav Berona in the name of Rav: One may kindle with liquefied fat and fish innards. Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Ashi failed to come before Rav. He asked him, where have you been? He answered. I was trying to get olive oil. He asked him, do you not have innards of fish⁸⁵?

footnotes: ⁸² For this paragraph there exists a Genizah fragment published by Ginzberg (p. 72), G. ⁸³ Babli 21a, for fat and fish liver. ⁸⁴ With G, read “Rebbi”. ⁸⁵ In Babylonia where olive oil is not commonly used it is not particularly meritorious to spend time and money on a search for olive oil.

Some Tannaim state, one kindles with naphtha; but some Tannaim state, one does not kindle with naphtha. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one kindles, if it was black; and he who said, one does not kindle, if it was white, because it represents danger⁸⁶.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Babli 26a where using white (light) naphtha is forbidden even on weekdays because of the danger of an explosion.

MISHNAH: One does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday⁷ may not be burned on a day on which defective sacrifices may not be burned, i. e., Sabbath or holiday.. Rebbi Ismael says, one does not kindle with ˋiṭran¹¹ because of the honor of the Sabbath. But the Sages permit all kinds of oil, sesame oil, nut oil, radish oil¹², fish oil, colocynth oil¹³, ˋiṭran, and naphtha. Rebbi Tarphon says, one kindles only with olive oil.

footnotes: ⁷ Olive oil given as heave to a Cohen which became impure and therefore cannot be consumed. The Cohen may use it as fuel. But since it is holy, it is subject to the (rabbinic) rule that sancta ¹¹ According to Rashi, spoiled tar. According to Maimonides, resin. Both Talmudim assert that it smells very badly. ¹² Oil extracted from radish seeds. ¹³ Since the colocynth is a kind of cucumber, here also it must be oil extracted from seeds.

HALAKHAH: “One does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday,” etc. Therefore one kindles with all those mentioned earlier⁸⁷.

footnotes: ⁸⁷ Babli 24a, Tosephta 2:1.

“Rebbi Ismael says, one does not kindle with ˋiṭran¹¹ because of the honor of the Sabbath.” What is the difference between ˋiṭran and innards of fish? Innards of fish are not smelling badly as long as they are burning; they are smelling badly when extinguished. ˋIṭran smells badly whether extinguished or burning⁸⁸. Since it smells badly one should need to distance himself four cubits⁸⁹ 3:5). The disagreeable smell of ˋiṭran is not of the forbidden kind.; therefore it is necessary to say “one does not kindle”.

footnotes: ¹¹ According to Rashi, spoiled tar. According to Maimonides, resin. Both Talmudim assert that it smells very badly. ⁸⁸ Babli 25b. ⁸⁹ It should be forbidden to perform any religious duty within four cubits of the source of the bad smell (Berakhot

“But the Sages permit all kinds of oil.” (State:) colocynth oil⁹⁰ But as J. N. Epstein has shown (Tarbiz 5, pp. 260–261; מבוא לנוסח המשנה p. 951) the original text is correct and the addition of “colocynth oil” in the Mishnah is a later insert; as a vegetable oil it logically should have been mentioned before fish oil..

footnotes: ⁹⁰ The word “state” was crossed out by the corrector; it is not in the editio princeps.

“Rebbi Tarphon says, one kindles only with olive oil.” “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri got on his feet and said, if it is so what should the people of Babylonia do who have only sesame oil? What should the people of Media do who have only nut oil? What should the people of Alexandria do who have only radish oil? What should the people of Kappadokia do who have neither one nor the other (but naphtha)⁹¹? But you have only what the earlier ones permitted.⁹²”

footnotes: ⁹¹ Deleted by the corrector for no good reason; it is mentioned in the Tosephta and the Babli. ⁹² Babli 26a, Tosephta 2:3.

It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one does not kindle with balsamum because it is a resin.⁹³”

footnotes: ⁹³ Babli 25b,26a, Tosephta 2:3. He holds that one uses only oil from seeds, not wood or sap from the stem.

MISHNAH: One does not kindle with any wood product but flax¹⁴ 2:6.. No wood product may become impure by tent impurity¹⁵ but flax. A wick braided from textile which was threaded but not singed, Rebbi Eliezer says it may become impure¹⁶ and one does not use it to kindle; Rebbi Aqiba says it does not become impure and one may use it to kindle.

footnotes: ¹⁴ Flax is not a tree. The Babli explains that flax is called “wooden flax” in Jos. ¹⁵ The original impurity imparted to anything susceptible of impurity which is under one roof with a corpse. Wooden implements that are not containers cannot become impure. But flax as textile material can become impure. ¹⁶ Cloth of the minimal size of a handkerchief [which is defined as (3 finger-widths)2] is subject to all kinds of impurity. If the cloth wears out and is shredded to yield thread to make wicks, it is no longer subject to impurity. Once the threads are reassembled into a wick they become susceptible of impurity once the wick is usable. In R. Aqiba’s view, a wick will not burn unless its end has been singed and turned into charcoal; therefore the manufacture of the wick is not complete until it has been singed. Unfinished products do not become impure.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah⁹⁶. “One does not kindle with any wood product but flax,” etc. Rebbi Simeon⁹⁴ bar Rav Isaac said it is written⁹⁷ 27:20.: to raise permanent light. They estimated to say that nothing makes a flame like flax⁹⁸. It was stated⁹⁹: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, no wood product is subject to the three-by-three rule¹⁶ except flax and one may use it as roofing¹⁰⁰ may not be made with anything susceptible to impurity. Wooden logs as well as stems of plants may be used but not fruits., except flax.” Rebbi Yose said, they made it like coarse or soft, as we have stated¹⁰¹ 28:8. Cloth which is either very coarse or very fine cannot be used as handkerchief. Therefore it cannot become impure in the size of (3 fingers)². The minimum size for such fabric to be susceptible to impurity is that of a towel, (3 handbreadths)².: “the coarse and the soft are not subject to the three-by-three rule.” Rebbi Eleazar said, they learned it¹⁰² from the Tabernacle as it is written¹⁰³ 26.1., the Sanctuary you shall make ten gobelins, twilled byssus; and it is written¹⁰⁴ 44:16., linen turbans**shall be on their heads. You learn byssus from byssus, and byssus from turbans, and turbans from turbans¹⁰⁵ 26.1 and *Ex.*39:28, speaking of the priestly vestments, the hat-turbans of byssus, one may assume that the same turbans and the same materials are mentioned in Ez. 44:16, where it is explicitly stated that the priests’ turbans are made of linen. Similarly in the Babli Yoma71b; a different derivation in the name of R. Eleazar is in the Babli Šabbat 27b/28a..

footnotes: ⁹⁶ Quote from Mishnah 3. ⁹⁴ Read: R. Samuel ben Rav Isaac. ⁹⁷ Ex. ⁹⁸ The wick in the lamp which was burning through the night had to be of flax. ⁹⁹ Babli 26a, Tosephta 2:4. According to Rashi this implies that hemp fibers and cloth are impervious to impurity. ¹⁶ Cloth of the minimal size of a handkerchief [which is defined as (3 finger-widths)2] is subject to all kinds of impurity. If the cloth wears out and is shredded to yield thread to make wicks, it is no longer subject to impurity. Once the threads are reassembled into a wick they become susceptible of impurity once the wick is usable. In R. Aqiba’s view, a wick will not burn unless its end has been singed and turned into charcoal; therefore the manufacture of the wick is not complete until it has been singed. Unfinished products do not become impure. ¹⁰⁰ It is a strict rabbinic rule that the roof of a sukkah ¹⁰¹ Mishnah Kelim ¹⁰² The fact that linen textile is called “tent” and therefore brings impurity is implied by the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. ¹⁰³ Ex. ¹⁰⁴ Ez. ¹⁰⁵ There is a quote missing for the chain of reasoning. The gobelins which formed the walls of the Tabernacle were partially made of שֵׁשׁ “byssus”. The problem is to prove that byssus was made of linen. Since the same word was used in Ex.

Rebbi Eleazar asked, may one make the Tent¹⁰⁶19 in which a corpse causes impurity for all persons and vessels inside. of leather from an impure animal? But is it not written¹⁰⁷ 25:5. Since taḥaš is not mentioned in the lists of pure animals in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14, one must assume that it was impure. But the Tabernacle is the prime example of a “tent”; if its cover was of leather from an impure animal the question should not arise., and taḥaš skins. ¹⁰⁸ 1(28). Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Nehemiah and the rabbis. Rebbi Jehudah says, violet¹⁰⁹., one reads אלטינון.; it was called thus because of its color. Rebbi Nehemiah said, blue¹¹⁰., גלטינון.. But the rabbis say, a kind of pure animal which grows up in the desert. It comes like what Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu¹¹¹, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Meïr said: ¹¹² The Holy One, praise to Him, created for Moses in the desert a kind of pure aniMal. After the work of the Tabernacle had been finished it was hidden. Rebbi Abun said, its name was qereš. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a unicorn. It is preferable to the Eternal over a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves¹¹³ 69:32.. The All-Merciful wrote¹¹⁴, it sprouts a horn.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ Is a tent made of leather from an impure animal a tent in the meaning of Num. ¹⁰⁷ Ex. ¹⁰⁸ A parallel exists in Eccl. rabba ¹⁰⁹ Following Buxtorf, accepted by most moderns, this is Greek ἰάνθινος, -η, -ον, adj., “violet-colored”. In Eccl. r ¹¹⁰ This is identified as Greek γλαύκινος, -η, -ον, adj., “bluish-gray”. In Eccl. r ¹¹¹ Read: R. Abbahu (the Amora) in the name of R. Eleazar ben R. Yose (the Tanna). ¹¹² The same interpretation in the Babli, 28b. ¹¹³ Ps. ¹¹⁴ The Psalms, as Holy Scriptures, are considered of divine origin.

There, we have stated¹¹⁵ 28:2. Babli 29a.: “A [cloth] less than three by three [fingerwidths] which he took to plug the bath or to pour a pot¹¹⁶ or to clean a millstone, whether it was prepared or not prepared can become impure¹¹⁷, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. Rebbi Joshua says, (also a new rag)¹¹⁸ whether prepared or not prepared, is pure¹¹⁹. Rebbi Aqiba says, prepared it may become impure, not prepared it is pure.” What is the difference between prepared and not prepared? Whether he made it ready in the house or threw it into the garbage¹²⁰. But did we not state¹²¹ 27:12. תנן is Babylonian spelling.: “Rebbi Eliezer says, also a new rag follows the same rule.¹²²” Nobody says “also”, “even”, unless he agree with the preceding; whether he prepared it to hang it up or did not prepare it to hang it up¹²³. This learns from the other and the other learns from this. This learns from the other; the words of Rebbi Eliezer if he folded it¹²⁴. And the other learns from this; if he did not prepare it to hang it up. But if he prepared it to hang it up it may become impure.

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ Mishnah Kelim ¹¹⁶ To use it as a potholder. ¹¹⁷ For him the rule that textiles of area less that 9 (fingerwidth)2 cannot become impure is an empirical one since such a small piece in general is of no use. If somebody finds a use, the piece becomes a regular piece of textile and is subject to all laws of impurity. ¹¹⁸ Probably the words in parenthesis should be deleted; they are not found in any Mishnah ms. and are copied here from the quote later of Mishnah 27:12. ¹¹⁹ For him the three-finger rule is a permanent rabbinic decree which cannot be changed. ¹²⁰ A single use does not bring on impurity. If the rag was used once and then thrown away it cannot become impure. But if it is prepared for re-use it becomes valuable and is susceptible to impurity. ¹²¹ Mishnah Kelim ¹²² The Mishnah states that an impure piece of (3 fingerwiths)2 which was torn loses its impurity only if it is thrown away, with the exception of purple strips which are valuable also in minute sizes and never lose their impurity. R. Eliezer extends the latter rule to unused textiles. ¹²³ For re-use. ¹²⁴ For the first use; Babli 29b. If it never was intended for use he agrees that it is not susceptible to impurity.

¹²⁵ What is Rebbi Eliezer’s reason¹²⁶? He is like one who purifies vessels on the Sabbath¹²⁷. When he threaded it¹²⁸, it did not become pure since professional waiters like it threaded. Does it not become pure when it still is daylight? Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: because of a holiday which falls on Friday¹²⁹. Does it not become pure automatically? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, explain it if it was exactly three-by-three¹³⁰.

footnotes: ¹²⁵ Here starts a new Genizah leaf edited by Ginzberg (p. 73). ¹²⁶ This refers to the statement of R. Eliezer in the Mishnah who prohibits the use of linen wicks. ¹²⁷ If the linen was impure and he uses it as wick, the moment it becomes unusable as textile it loses the impurity of textiles. This is the equivalent of repairing defective equipment and is forbidden on the Sabbath. ¹²⁸ This “threading” is not the “folding” mentioned in the preceding paragraph but the twisting of linen threads to make a wick. Since some people insist on using only twisted wicks, the threads remain usable even if they do not cover an area of (3 fingerwidths)2 and do not lose their impurity. ¹²⁹ It also is forbidden to repair equipment of a holiday; for a similar argument cf. Note 56. ¹³⁰ Then they lose their impurity the moment a person starts lighting them. One cannot say that the loss of impurity is later an automatic consequence of a prior permitted act of a human. Babli 38b (in the name of the Babylonian Rav Joseph.)

Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Simeon the nazir¹³¹ son.: If he made it into a bandage it is pure¹³² 28:2. The medication makes the bandage unusable otherwise.. If one dipped it in oil is it not as if he made a bandage¹³³? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Yannai¹³⁴, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, logically practice should follow Rebbi Aqiba who is similar to both¹³⁵ 2:3 practice certainly follows R. Aqiba against R. Eliezer. For consistency the practice also should follow R. Aqiba in Mishnah Kelim28:1 where he partially follows R. Eliezer and partially R. Joshua. In general, R. Joshua is an overriding authority., but in fact it follows Rebbi Joshua who is lenient in the matter of three-by-three. Not only pure but even impure, because of Rav, since Rav said one heats with vessels, but one does not heat with pieces of vessels¹³⁶ 32a, 33a..

footnotes: ¹³¹ In G correctly: R. Simeon the nazir’s ¹³² Mishnah Kelim ¹³³ Then the wick already is pure and R. Eliezer’s reason does not apply. ¹³⁴ In G one reads “R. Joḥanan” before the mention of R. Yannai; there is a lacuna preceding this word; it is not clear whether it read “R. Zeˋira in the name of R. Joḥanan.” One has to wonder why R. Jeremiah, the student of R. Zeˋira, reports a different tradition. ¹³⁵ In Mishnah Šabbat ¹³⁶ Vessels may become impure but potsherds are pure. Rav permits to use combustible vessels as fuel even though they become pure by losing their qualities as vessels in the fire. He forbids using shards as fuel, which cannot become impure, since they may not be moved on the Sabbath because they are of no use (Chapter 17). There is no connection between susceptibility to impurity and use as wick on the Sabbath. The statement of Rav is quoted in the Babli 28a, 29a, 124b, 143a; Beṣah

MISHNAH: A person may not pierce an eggshell¹⁷, fill it with oil, and put it over a light so it should drip even if it is made from clay; Rebbi Jehudah permits it. But if the potter combined it from the outset it is permitted. A person may not fill a bowl with oil, put it next to a light and dip the end of the wick into it so it should draw; Rebbi Jehudah permits it.

footnotes: ¹⁷ An egg-shaped container. If the container is not rigidly connected to the light, one might be tempted to move or remove it.

HALAKHAH: “A person may not pierce an eggshell¹⁷.” Why? Because it did not start at each single drop¹³⁷, or maybe he might forget and stir? What is the difference between them? This refined ¹³⁸” is unknown (as noted by Sokoloff in his Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic) and why one would not be tempted to stir. The conjectures of the commentaries (bast fiber bags, opening of a pitcher) and earlier dictionaries are of no value.דיקלון. If you are saying, because it did not start at each single drop, it did not stop at every single drop; if you say. maybe be might forget and stir, he will not forget and stir.

footnotes: ¹⁷ An egg-shaped container. If the container is not rigidly connected to the light, one might be tempted to move or remove it. ¹³⁷ A condition for leaving things burning on the Sabbath; Chapter 1 Note 355. ¹³⁸ The identity of this “refined diklon

“If the potter combined it from the outset it is permitted since it is one vessel.” There is a difference because all is one, if he combined it by lime or gypsum¹³⁹, if he combined it by lime or gypsum.” This refers to the Mishnah; if the text of the Tosephta had been that of the Mishnah, the question asked in the previous paragraph would have superfluous since the reason for the prohibition cannot be that not every drop was involved. גִּיפְּסוֹס is Greek γύψος “gypsum; cement”.. Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says moist liquid is a connection¹⁴⁰ 72b, this refers mainly to transfer of impurity. Solid material impure in degree n makes other materials impure in degree n+1. There is a discussion about fluids; there are those who assert that fluids do not touch, they combine and everything moistened by impure fluids biblically becomes impure in the same degree as the fluid itself. (Rabbinically it can be stronger impurity; Chapter 1, Note 299). R. Jehudah accepts this statement and extends it to other legal domains, such as the laws of the Sabbath.. It was stated: One wick in two cups, in two pots, in two trays is forbidden; Rebbi Jehudah permits. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Phineas: Rebbi Jehudah follows his own opinion since Rebbi Jehudah says moist liquid is a connection.

footnotes: ¹³⁹ Babli 29b, Tosephta 2:6. This is the condition of the majority to allow the light to burn. G has a different text: “If it had said ¹⁴⁰ In the Babli, Avodah zarah

MISHNAH: One who extinguishes a light because he is afraid of Gentiles, of robbers, of evil spirits, or because of a sick person to let him sleep, is not liable¹⁸. If to save the light, to save the oil, to save the wick, he is liable¹⁹. Rebbi Yose declares them all not liable except for the wick because he produces charcoal.

footnotes: ¹⁸ It is supposed that one extinguishes the light because one is afraid of an attack, whether by people or in the case of a mentally ill person who may become violent under the influence of an evil spirit. The “sick person” mentioned in the Mishnah must have a life-threatening sickness. In all these cases there is a danger to life and one is permitted (or required) to extinguish the light. The formulation mentions “not liable” which usually means “forbidden but not prosecutable” only to obtain a formulation parallel to the statement of R. Yose where the original meaning holds. ¹⁹ Since he completed an action according to his wishes. R. Yose holds (with R. Simeon on other occasions) that if the intent was not the action itself but a consequence of it, then in general the action is not prosecutable. In this case, if the intent was to prevent the clay lamp from bursting when the oil was almost used up, extinguishing the flame is not the object of his intent; the action “was not the object of his intent”. But if the intent was to preserve the wick, extinguishing the fire will automatically produce a charred tip of the wick which is the essence of producing a usable wick (Note 16) and the action is the object of his intent.

HALAKHAH: “One who extinguishes a light because he is afraid of Gentiles,¹⁴¹” etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, [so is the Mishnah:]¹⁴² because dangerous Gentiles, because of dangerous robbers. Rebbi Yose asked, if because of dangerous robbers one should have stated “it is permitted.¹⁴³” The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It is permitted¹⁴⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁴¹ Quote from Mishnah 5. ¹⁴² Added from G. ¹⁴³ If extinguishing the light is needed to save a life, it is not only permitted, it is required. The formulation of the Mishnah, “he is not liable” gives the impression that the action is sinful. This might cause people to hesitate to extinguish the light when it is necessary for survival, a very bad outcome. ¹⁴⁴ They reformulated the Mishnah. The Babli, 30a, agrees that in these cases it is permitted; they defend the formulation “not liable” because it also refers to the cases mentioned later in the Mishnah.

What is the difference between one who saves from what is in the light and one who saves what is in the olive¹⁴⁵? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Shila from Naveh: One who saves from the wick itself cannot be compared to one who saves away from the wick itself¹⁴⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁵ This is a question about the second part of the Mishnah. Why is the person who extinguishes the light to save oil liable? The person who stores olives to press them later is not liable. ¹⁴⁶ The question is not well posed. If one removes oil from a burning lamp one causes the wick to be extinguished earlier; this is an act of extinguishing. But not to press olives is doing nothing. (S. Lieberman prefers to emend בבית “in the house” instead of בזית “in the olive”.)

Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon said the same thing. Just as Rebbi Yose said, not unless he needs the body of the wick¹⁴⁷, so Rebbi Simeon says, not unless he needs the body of the thing¹⁴⁸ 85a, Keritut 20b. In the Yerushalmi later Chap. 13 (14a l. 38), Beṣah 1:3 (60b l. 21).. How do you need the body of the wick? The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: for so the professional waiters singe in this way, as you say¹⁴⁹3:27., and the hair on their heads was not singed. What means “singe in this way”? They singe it¹⁵⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ In the Mishnah, where he frees from liability all who extinguish the light except the one who does it for the wick. ¹⁴⁸ Further on in Mishnah 10:5 R. Simeon frees from liability a person carrying in the public domain if the carrying was not needed for the matter, implying that work on the Sabbath implies criminal liability only if it was needed for the intent. Babli 105b, 107b, 141b, Sanhedrin ¹⁴⁹ Dan. ¹⁵⁰ The biblical root חרך which was no longer understood is explained by the rabbinic Aramaic root פספס which means the same.Since it would be embarrassing for the waiter if a wick failed to burn when he lights it in front of guests, singing the wicks before they are needed is professional work done for a purpose. Babli 31b.

¹⁵¹ 10(Note 147) and Pesaḥim 6:1(33b 1.34), also Bava qamma3:12 (Notes 140–144); cf. Babli Šabbat106a, Beṣah 12b, Yebamot 16b, Bava qamma 34b, Sanhedrin 62b. There, we have stated¹⁵²: “All who destroy are not liable,” except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes¹⁵³ to Šabbat 106a (ed. M. Herschler col. 365) as text here: “R. Joḥanan says, one making a fire only if he needs the ashes, one causing a wound only if he needs the blood.”. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.¹⁵⁴ 7:1 Notes 16 ff.). The payment is excluded even if there is no possibility of criminal prosecution.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose¹⁵⁵. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose¹⁵⁶ Note 153) quotes the text as: R. Ḥanina ben R. Hila said, this is correct. Since if it were for a purpose he would be guilty of a capital crime here even if it was for no purpose he is free from paying restitution. he should be free from paying restitution, from the following¹⁵⁷ 23:21. Babli Ketubot 35a,38a; Bava qamma 35a; Sanhedrin 74b,84b.: The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die. Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money¹⁵⁸ is disproved; there is no Mishnaic source contradicting R. Joḥanan..

footnotes: ¹⁵¹ The main parallels for the first part of this paragraph are Eruvin ¹⁵² Mishnah 13:3. ¹⁵³ There is obviously a sentence missing here stating the position of R. Joḥanan. The sentence is reported in all parallel sources and is quoted by Naḥmanides in his Novellae ¹⁵⁴ “Liable” and “not liable” here means financial responsibility for damages. The human who sets a fire on the Sabbath does not have to pay since he has committed a capital crime and it is a principle of talmudic law that the possibility of a death penalty bars monetary claims (cf. Terumot ¹⁵⁵ The statement of the Mishnah does not mention intent; it excludes payment even if the ashes from the fire are not needed. This indicates that there is potential criminal liability also in this case, disproving R. Joḥanan’s assertion. ¹⁵⁶ Naḥmanides (loc. cit. ¹⁵⁷ Lev. ¹⁵⁸ The argument based on the Mishnah in Bava qamma

It is difficult for Bar Qappara. Setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah; they are all for a need, itself not for a need¹⁵⁹35:3 as forbidden on the Sabbath since all work is forbidden. One opinion is that it was mentioned to indicate that doing each category of work is a separate offense on the Sabbath. The other opinion is that setting a fire on the Sabbath is no capital crime since no punishment is indicated in Chapter 35. It is clear that Bar Qappara cannot hold the first opinion since he holds that setting a fire is criminal even for no purpose while he must agree that for all (or most) other categories a purpose is needed.? Rebbi Yose said, if (Rebbi Eleazar)¹⁶⁰ is quoted in his name and also in a disagreement with R. Joḥanan he is mentioned first, having precedence in time. would think with Rebbi Joḥanan who said, setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah. Rebbi Eleazar said, setting fire taught about itself¹⁶¹ 6b,33b; Sanhedrin 35b,62a; Keritut 20b.. Does Rebbi Eleazar not have about one¹⁶² 4:2: A person who sins inadvertently about any of the commandments of the Eternal that should not be done, but he did one of these. If one stresses the “one” one infers that each single offense requires its own purification sacrifice. If one stresses “these” it follows that one sacrifice atones for multiple infractions. The harmonization of both approaches is a topic for Chapter 7; Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Pereq 1(7). Naḥmanides reads אחרת instead of אחת, “does he not have another (reason)”? The reading of the ms. is preferable. to make him liable for each single one? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, of these, to make him liable once for all of them. We understand setting fire. A wound? Its main point¹⁶³ Therefore slaughter of these animals was part of the building activity and defines a category of work forbidden on the Sabbath. for a need, itself not for a need? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan disagree. One said, slaughter is the main point and a wound derivative; the other one switches¹⁶⁴.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁹ As explained later, the question is asked why setting a fire is singled out in Ex. ¹⁶⁰ The scribe wrote “R. Lazar”, the corrector crossed it out because he was of the opinion that this name is an intrusion here, referring to the Amora R. Eleazar the student and frequent opponent of R. Joḥanan. But in this paragraph “R. Lazar” means the Tanna R. Eleazar the Qappar, i. e., Bar Qappara. The proof is that later a baraita ¹⁶¹ In the wording of the Babli 70a in the name of the Tanna R. Yose, “setting fire is a separate prohibition”. Yebamot ¹⁶² Lev. ¹⁶³ The actions forbidden on the Sabbath are codified in 39 categories. The heading of the category is called its main point, אָב מְלָאכָה “father of action”, anything else subsumed under the same category is תּוֹלְדָה “born from it”, derivative.To build the Tabernacle one needed the skins of red goats and of taḥaš. ¹⁶⁴ Cf. Chapter 7, Note 422.

If one set a fire and extinguished with the same blowing he is liable twice¹⁶⁵ 20a.. Rebbi Eudaimon the brother of Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if he blew at vessels and broke them, he pays full damages¹⁶⁶ 2:10.. He who stirs coals under a pot on the Sabbath is liable. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, he is liable twice, once that he extinguished the upper layer and once that he set fire to the lower layer¹⁶⁷ 20a.. But he who stirs coals to warm himself in front of them on the Sabbath is not liable¹⁶⁸ 20b.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is a disagreement; according to him who said that he is liable only once. But according to him who said that he is twice liable he is liable¹⁶⁷ 20a.. For Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, he is not twice liable but he is considered as if twice liable¹⁶⁹. Rebbi Yudan said, there he does not want that they be set on fire and he does not want that they be extinguished¹⁷⁰. But here he wants that they be set on fire and he wants that they be extinguished.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁵ These are two distinct activities. Keritut ¹⁶⁶ Blowing is like acting with one’s hands; a human always has to pay full restitution for damages he causes; Mishnah Bava qamma ¹⁶⁷ He cannot hold that one is not liable if the intended result is only a side effect but must extend liability to all cases where the action is intentional. A person who stirs coals wants to increase the efficiency of the heating process; if as a side effect some coals burn less hot it certainly is the unintended side effect of an intentional act. If he nevertheless is held liable for extinguishing, the ruling disputes R. Simeon’s position. Keritut ¹⁶⁸ Because what he wants is a side effect only and for side effects one does not become liable under the laws of the Sabbath. Keritut ¹⁶⁷ He cannot hold that one is not liable if the intended result is only a side effect but must extend liability to all cases where the action is intentional. A person who stirs coals wants to increase the efficiency of the heating process; if as a side effect some coals burn less hot it certainly is the unintended side effect of an intentional act. If he nevertheless is held liable for extinguishing, the ruling disputes R. Simeon’s position. Keritut ¹⁶⁹ Since R. Joḥanan follows R. Simeon in freeing unintended consequences from legal sanctions he cannot sanction the unintended cooling of coals in the stirring. But this does not mean that it is not morally reprehensible. ¹⁷⁰ The one who stirs in order to keep warm is not interested in the combustion process but he who stirs to cook wants to control the process. The two cases are not comparable.

If one made a fire and cooked, there are Tannaim who state, he is twice liable, and there are Tannaim who state, he is once liable. He who said that he is twice liable, once because of setting a fire and once because of cooking¹⁷¹. But he who said once, which one is it? Rebbi Jehudah says, because of setting a fire. Rebbi Yose says, because of cooking. It is difficult for Rebbi Yose; setting fire taught about all work [mentioned] in the Torah; he is not liable because of setting a fire but because of cooking¹⁷²?

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ This depends on categorizing actions on the Sabbath, whether cooking is subsumed under making a fire or not. ¹⁷² There is no problem for the Babli since R. Yose is the author of the opposite opinion, cf. Note 161.

¹⁷³ An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath¹⁷⁴ 18:7). In addition, the Temple service on the Sabbath requires many acts, slaughter and burning of sacrifices, which outside the Temple are capital crimes. If the act was unintentional, how many purification sacrifices are due?, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity¹⁷⁵ 21:16–24). Any impure Cohen is similarly barred (Lev. 22:3). Are the disabilities cumulative or is disqualification one and the same? The question is raised but neither discussed nor answered; it is treated in the parallel in the Babli, Yebamot 32a., the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, two; bar Qappara said, one. Bar Qappara objected to the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: is the outsider liable for any service which is permitted to a Cohen¹⁷⁶? He¹ objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful¹⁷⁷ 6:7–11) but it remains forbidden for all outsiders.; before the handful was taken it was forbidden for both; after the handful was taken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food¹⁷⁸ 22:10. This is a separate decree independent of Temple or Sabbath.. Is there not the breaking of the neck¹⁷⁹ 1:15,5:9. In case of a purification offering, the bird has to be eaten by Cohanim and is prohibited to laymen; the live bird is prohibited to everybody.; before the neck was broken it was forbidden for both; after the neck was broken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. Is there not the ṭevel¹⁸⁰; before it was put in order it was forbidden for both; after it was put in order it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to Cohanim? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: no outsider may eat sanctified food. They said, let us go outside and learn. They went outside and heard, Rebbi Yose said, two; Rebbi Simeon said, one. He who said one, because of outsider status. He who said two, one because of outsider status; why the other? Because of slaughter¹⁸¹. But slaughter by an outsider is valid¹⁸² 33b.! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving¹⁸³. These are only because of Sabbath rest¹⁸⁴. Therefore the reason may be only because of the consumption of limbs and fat which were consumed on the altar during the entire night. In the opinion of Rebbi Jehudah¹⁸⁵ who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose¹⁸⁵ who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.

footnotes: ¹⁷³ Here starts another Genizah fragment edited by Ginzberg (pp. 74–75) of which very little is readable for this paragraph. ¹⁷⁴ He commits a deadly sin by officiating (Num. ¹⁷⁵ The deformed Cohen is barred from officiating (Lev. ¹⁷⁶ Everybody agrees that as an officiating outsider he is liable for a sacrifice. The question is about the Sabbath. Outside the Temple, the Sabbath prohibitions apply to Cohanim and to everybody else. They are lifted in the Temple precinct by biblical decree. Since there is no verse re-instituting the prohibition for laymen in the Temple precinct one should conclude that violating Sabbath prohibitions in the course of Temple service is not sanctionable irrespective of the person who officiates. This is Bar Qappara’s position. ¹ S. Lieberman has shown that וּמוֹתִיב should be read as הוּא מוֹתִיב. ¹⁷⁷ We find that prohibitions are to be lifted for Cohanim but not for laymen inside and outside the Temple. A cereal offering is forbidden for all consumption from the moment it was received in a sanctified vessel. The priest has to take a handful from the offering and burn it on the altar; this permits the remainder to be eaten by Cohanim (Lev. ¹⁷⁸ Lev. ¹⁷⁹ Of sacrifices of birds, Lev. ¹⁸⁰ Produce after the harvest of which heave and tithes were not taken. After these were taken the produce becomes profane but heave is reserved to pure Cohanim. This has no connection with Temple service. ¹⁸¹ Of the sacrifices. ¹⁸² The office of the Cohen starts only with receiving the victim’s blood in a sacred vessel; slaughter of sacrifices, even on the Sabbath, is legitimate for outsiders, mostly Levites. This bolsters Bar Qappara’s case. Babli Yebamot ¹⁸³ The offices of the Cohen after the receiving of the blood. The blood is sprinkled on the wall of the altar. ¹⁸⁴ If there are Sabbath violations they are only of rabbinic prohibitions which as a matter of principle do not apply to the Temple precinct. ¹⁸⁵ As explained at the end of the preceding paragraph. This is the reason for the inclusion of this paragraph at this point. ¹⁸⁵ As explained at the end of the preceding paragraph. This is the reason for the inclusion of this paragraph at this point.

MISHNAH: Because of three sins women die in childbirth, because they are not careful with niddah²⁰, ḥallah²¹. Here also the husband is dependent on the information given by his wife that he may eat the bread baked by her., and candle lighting²² 3:1..

footnotes: ²⁰ All the rules governing her period; in particular informing her husband that she is forbidden to his sexual attentions. He has to depend on the information she gives him. ²¹ The gift to the Cohen to be given from bread dough; cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah ²² Preparing lighting for the Friday evening meal is the duty of the wife (Babli 25b) and should not be delegated to a servant. Since this is an obligation tied to a fixed time it cannot be a biblical commandment as women are not subject to positive commandments tied to fixed times. But in the Halakhah to Mishnah 6 (Note 214) the obligation of the wife to light Sabbath candles is called a (rabbinic) commandment. Cf. Maimonides, Hilkhot Šabbat

HALAKHAH: “Because of three sins women die in childbirth,¹⁸⁶” etc. There are Tannaim who state, as children. There are Tannaim who state, in childbirth¹⁸⁷. He who said as children, it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah: Children die because of the sin of vows¹⁸⁸ 72a.. What is the reason? For the vain I did hit your sons¹⁸⁹ 2:30, cf. Nedarim 3:2, Note 73.. But he who said in childbirth, from here that Satan¹⁹⁰ accuses¹⁹¹ only in times of danger.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁶ Quote from Mishnah 6. ¹⁸⁷ Babli 32a. ¹⁸⁸ Babli 32b, Ketubot ¹⁸⁹ Jer. ¹⁹⁰ The prosecutor in the Heavenly Court. ¹⁹¹ A Hebrew verb formed from Greek κατηγορέω “accuse”. The vocalization בְשָׁעַת is from G.

Rebbi Phineas, Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is written¹⁹², before Eleazar the priest he shall stand and ask him about the judgment of the illuminati. It is not written “in the order of the illuminati” but “about the judgment of the illuminati”. This teaches that at the moment when Israel goes to war the Heavenly Court sits because of them, whether to be victorious or to be vanquished. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, it is written¹⁹³. 23:10, if you camp out against your enemies, guard yourself from every bad thing. Therefore if he does not go out he does not have to guard himself¹⁹⁴. But from here that Satan accuses only in times of danger.

footnotes: ¹⁹² Num. 27:21 ¹⁹³ Deut ¹⁹⁴ G: Needs no guard.

Rebbi Aḥai bar Jacob said, it is written¹⁹⁵. 42:38 an accident might happen to him on the road. Therefore not at home. But from here that Satan accuses only in times of danger.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁵ Gen

¹⁹⁶) this homily precedes the one of R. Aḥai. Rebbi Bisna in the name of Rebbi Lia: It is written¹⁹⁷ 19:3, Is. 37:3., a day of affliction, and admonition, and insult is this day. Therefore not another day. But from here that Satan accuses only in times of danger.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁶ In G (and the editio princeps of ˋEyn yaˋaqov ¹⁹⁷ 2K.

Rebbi Ayvo bar Nagori. It is written¹⁹⁸ 109:7., when he will be judged he will be found guilty. It is not written “he will be justified” but when he will be judged he will be found guilty. But from here that Satan accuses only in times of danger.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ Ps.

Rebbi Abba bar Bina said, if a plank is extended from one roof to another¹⁹⁹ even if it is rather wide it is forbidden to walk on it. Why? (From here)²⁰⁰ because Satan accuses only in times of danger.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁹ The plank is not fastened at both ends. ²⁰⁰ Delete with G.

Rav said, one who sits in a dilapidated house makes the Angel of Death to his creditor²⁰¹ -ae, m., “creditor”., as it is said²⁰² 55:16., he claims death over them, as you say²⁰³ 24:10., if you have any claim against your neighbor.

footnotes: ²⁰¹ Greek δανειστής, -οῶ, Latin danista, ²⁰² Ps/ ²⁰³ Deut.

Rebbi Levi said, at three places the Satan usually accuses: one who is on the road alone, one who sleeps in a dark house alone, and one who sets sail on the ocean. Rebbi Isaac bar Marion said, if it had not been written²⁰⁴ 43:16., so says the Eternal Who makes a path in the Sea, if a person would set out on it he would die. But the rabbis say, Who makes a path in the Sea, from Pentecost to Tabernacles, and in great waters a trail, from Tabernacles to Ḥanukkah²⁰⁵. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Tanḥum from Kefar Agin (a case)²⁰⁶ was in Essia. He wanted to set sail between Tabernacles and Ḥanukkah. A matron²⁰⁷ the wife of an important personality. saw him and said to him, now one sets sail? His father appeared to him²⁰⁸, but he had no burial²⁰⁹ 6:3.; he listened to neither and travelled by sea. Rebbi Cohen the brother of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was a sailor. He came to sail between Tabernacles and Ḥanukkah. He said to his brother, pray for me. He answered him yes, I prayed for you, but if you see the public praying for rain²¹⁰ do not trust my prayer. Since you bound your lulav²¹¹ 23:40) interpreted as a kind of rain-making equipment., bind your feet.

footnotes: ²⁰⁴ Is. ²⁰⁵ But the first quarter of the year is off limits for shipping. ²⁰⁶ Erroneous addition by a corrector. ²⁰⁷ Latin matrona, ²⁰⁸ In a dream. ²⁰⁹ Eccl. ²¹⁰ Since one publicly prays for rain on the last day of Tabernacles one cannot honestly pray in private for good weather during the winter period. ²¹¹ The “four species” taken on Tabernacles (Num.

Mishnah. “Because they are not careful with Niddah²⁰, and ḥallah²¹. Here also the husband is dependent on the information given by his wife that he may eat the bread baked by her., and candle lighting²² 3:1..” ²¹² The First Man was the blood of the world, as is written²¹³. 2:6., mist would arise from the land. Eve caused him death, therefore they handed the commandment of Niddah to the woman.

footnotes: ²⁰ All the rules governing her period; in particular informing her husband that she is forbidden to his sexual attentions. He has to depend on the information she gives him. ²¹ The gift to the Cohen to be given from bread dough; cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah ²² Preparing lighting for the Friday evening meal is the duty of the wife (Babli 25b) and should not be delegated to a servant. Since this is an obligation tied to a fixed time it cannot be a biblical commandment as women are not subject to positive commandments tied to fixed times. But in the Halakhah to Mishnah 6 (Note 214) the obligation of the wife to light Sabbath candles is called a (rabbinic) commandment. Cf. Maimonides, Hilkhot Šabbat ²¹² A related homily in the Babli, 31a/32b. ²¹³ Gen

“And ḥallah²¹. Here also the husband is dependent on the information given by his wife that he may eat the bread baked by her..” The First Man was the pure ḥallah of the world, as is written²¹⁴. 2:7., the Eternal, God, created man, dust from the earth. This comes as Rebbi Yose ben Qasarta said, when the woman agitates her dough in water she lifts her ḥallah. Eve caused him death, therefore they handed the commandment of ḥallah to the woman.

footnotes: ²¹ The gift to the Cohen to be given from bread dough; cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah ²¹⁴ Gen

“And candle lighting²² 3:1..” The First Man was the light of the world, as is said²¹⁵ 20:23., God’s light is Adam’s soul. Eve caused him death, therefore they handed the commandment of the light to the woman. ²¹⁶ 31b. Tosephta 2:10. It was stated: Rebbi Yose says, there are three clingings of death and all three were handed to woman: These are they, the commandment of Niddah, the commandment of ḥallah, and the commandment²¹⁷ of lighting the light.

footnotes: ²² Preparing lighting for the Friday evening meal is the duty of the wife (Babli 25b) and should not be delegated to a servant. Since this is an obligation tied to a fixed time it cannot be a biblical commandment as women are not subject to positive commandments tied to fixed times. But in the Halakhah to Mishnah 6 (Note 214) the obligation of the wife to light Sabbath candles is called a (rabbinic) commandment. Cf. Maimonides, Hilkhot Šabbat ²¹⁵ Prov. ²¹⁶ Babli 32a, Berakhot ²¹⁷ This homily and the following story of R. Eliezer are the only occurrences where lighting on Sabbath Eve is called a commandment; cf. Note 22.

MISHNAH: Three things a person has to say in his house Friday afternoon before it gets dark: Did you give tithe²³; one may assume that the farmer took care of it before the produce came to market. But tithe is a full 10% and is essentially a civil obligation for the benefit of Levites; one may not assume that the farmer took care of this obligation. Since food consumed on the Sabbath has to be prepared beforehand (Ex. 16:23), it is impossible to take tithe on the Sabbath since this would transform non-edibles into edibles., did you make an eruv²⁴. Sadducees considered pharisaic eruvim as Sabbath desecrations., kindle the light²⁵! If there is a doubt whether it is dark or not dark one does not tithe what is certain²⁶, nor immerse vessels²⁷ during twilight., not kindle lights, but one may tithe what is questionable²⁸. Since such produce may be fed to the poor and strangers it cannot be classified as “unprepared”. Therefore the deficiency may be corrected during twilight hours when any Sabbath restrictions only apply rabbinically., and make an eruv, and store away hot food²⁹.

footnotes: ²³ New produce grown by Jewish farmers in the Holy Land, once the harvest has been completed, may not be consumed unless heave and tithes were taken. Heave is a small amount and a sanctum ²⁴ The symbolic sharing of space, a courtyard or a dead-end street, by several families turning the space into their private domain with regard to the laws of the Sabbath; details are the subject of Tractate Eruvin ²⁵ The last action necessary in preparation of the Sabbath. The head of household has to determine that everything is ready for the Sabbath but he does not light himself; this is the obligation of the wife. ²⁶ If there is knowledge that tithe had not been given, the food cannot be made ready for consumption after sundown. ²⁷ Impure vessels which cannot be used in a Cohen’s household who eats heave or an Israel’s household who eats his profane food in ritual purity cannot be purified by immersion in a miqweh ²⁸ Produce where there is no certain knowledge, only a suspicion that tithe had not been given, the subject of Tractate Demay ²⁹ Hot food to be kept warm for the Sabbath noon meal in insulating material as explained in Chapter 4.

HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “Three things a person has to say in his house,” etc. ²¹⁸ It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the practices of sancta, and purifying waters, and preparations for impurity, are of the most important practices and all three have been handed over to the vulgar. The practices of sancta, as we have stated²¹⁹ 3:4. A vulgar person is a person who is not careful to keep the laws of purity in his daily life and to be punctilious in observing the laws of tithes (cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay, pp. 349–350). The Mishnah states that if a vulgar gives heave from his wine making (which everybody is assumed to do) the Cohen who is a Fellow, punctilious in all these rules, may accept the heave as pure only at grape-pressing time. But if the vulgar tells him that part of the juice is dedicated as libation offering in the Temple, the Cohen may accept it all year long since the vulgar will strictly follow all rules of purity connected with the Temple.: “If he said, I separated into it a quartarius of sanctum, he must be believed.” Purifying waters, as we have stated²²⁰ 5:1. Water used for the purification rite with the ashes of the Red Cow (Num. 19) must be treated following very strict rules. Nevertheless any vulgar can be trusted in this matter since the purification rite is needed before a visit to the Temple.: “Everybody is trustworthy about purifying water.” Preparations for impurity, as we have stated²²¹ 2:3 Note 141, Terumot 1:1 Notes 7,9, Niddah 2:6 Notes 98–100). Since the vulgar person is impure, if he asserts that something of his is pure it means that it is impervious to impurity.: “About all these the vulgar is trustworthy to say that they are pure.”It should have been necessary²²² at twilight are only rabbinical violations. It should have been necessary to first make sure that no biblical violation occurs; cf. the next paragraph.: Kindle the light, did you give tithe, did you make an eruv, kindle²²³? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba²²⁴ said, since you are strict with him for the easier rules he will be strict with himself with the weighty one. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac commanded his house, did you make an eruv, did you kindle the light? Why did he not say, did you give tithe? Because all he ate, he ate from the market²²⁵2:2 Note 126)..

footnotes: ²¹⁸ Babli 32a, Tosephta 2:10. ²¹⁹ Mishnah Ḥagigah ²²⁰ Mishnah Parah ²²¹ Food can become impure only if it is “prepared” for impurity by intentional contact with water (cf. Demay ²²² Making a fire on the Sabbath is a biblical Sabbath violation; giving tithe and making an eruv ²²³ This last word should be deleted with G. ²²⁴ In G: R. Ḥiyya bar Ada. It is impossible to decide which reading is correct. ²²⁵ He was of Babylonian origin and never acquired land in Galilee. Since he bought his food only from trustworthy suppliers he never had to tithe anything (Demay

Mishnah: “If there is a doubt whether it is dark or not dark,” etc. ²²⁶ 68a, and Avot dR. Natan A, Chapter 25. It happened that Rebbi Eliezer was dying on a Friday when it got dark. His son Hyrcanus entered to remove his phylacteries²²⁷. He told him, my son, you neglected the commandment of the light which is for the Sabbath and for which one incurs extirpation and you came to remove phylacteries which is only rabbinical and is only a [positive] commandment²²⁸ 5 (1934) pp. 97–99.. He left crying and said, woe to me that my father has lost his mind. He told him, your mind is lost, my mind is not lost. When his students saw that he answered him wisely they entered to him and started asking him. He answered on the impure impure and the pure pure; at the end he said “pure” and his soul vanished. They said, it is clear that our teacher is pure. Rebbi Mana said, it still is clear. Rebbi Joshua entered, removed his phylacteries, was embracing him, and kissing him, and crying, and said, my teacher, my teacher, the vow has been dissolved²²⁹; my teacher, chariot of Israel and its riders²³⁰ 2:12..

footnotes: ²²⁶ A different version is in the Babli, Sanhedrin ²²⁷ Which are worn neither during nighttime nor on the Sabbath. ²²⁸ The translation of the technical terms which in the Babli are read as רְשׁוּת “voluntary act”, שְׁבוּת “rabbinic Sabbath prohibition”, and מִצְוָה “commandment” follows S. Lieberman in Tarbiz ²²⁹ The ban imposed on R. Eliezer for his refusal to accept a majority decision was at variance with his traditions. ²³⁰ 2K.

Mishnah: “nor immerse vessels²⁷ during twilight..” ²³¹2:2 (י). Babli Beṣah 18a. Our Mishnah is about large vessels but for small vessels one may be cunning about them and immerse them. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a person may fill an impure vessels from a cistern, be cunning about it²³²; the vessel by falling in certainly was completely immersed. But a miqweh purifies only with corresponding intent (cf. Note 68); therefore the owner has to be cunning, i. e., remove the vessel from the cistern with the intent that it should be pure. and immerse it. It was stated: If his pail fell into a cistern, or his vessels fell into a cistern, he may be cunning about them and immerse them. Two Amoraim, one said, about vessels impure in original impurity²³³; the other said, about vessels impure in derivative impurity. He who said in (original)²³⁴ text. impurity objected to the one who said in (derivative)²³⁴ text. impurity, even on a weekday it would require sundown²³⁵ can be used for sanctified food only after the next sundown (Lev. 11:32). For a vessel immersed at twilight this is only after almost 24 hours.? He answered him, if he wants to use them to eat profane food in purity²³⁶.

footnotes: ²⁷ Impure vessels which cannot be used in a Cohen’s household who eats heave or an Israel’s household who eats his profane food in ritual purity cannot be purified by immersion in a miqweh ²³¹ A parallel to this paragraph is Beṣah ²³² The cistern serves as a miqweh ²³³ Which is biblical. ²³⁴ Clearly one has to switch “original” and “derivative” with the Beṣah ²³⁴ Clearly one has to switch “original” and “derivative” with the Beṣah ²³⁵ An impure vessel which becomes pure by immersion in a miqweh ²³⁶ The vessel is pure and the food is not sanctified.

Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi. A quick woman will rinse a cup here²³⁷, a pot there, a plate there and end up watering down her house on the Sabbath.

footnotes: ²³⁷ Washing the dishes after Sabbath meals. The house has a dirt floor and only one story. Babli 95a.

Mishnah: “But one may tithe what is questionable²⁸. Since such produce may be fed to the poor and strangers it cannot be classified as “unprepared”. Therefore the deficiency may be corrected during twilight hours when any Sabbath restrictions only apply rabbinically..” Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi: “maybe it was put in order, maybe it was not put in order.²³⁸ 5:9, Note 193.”

footnotes: ²⁸ Produce where there is no certain knowledge, only a suspicion that tithe had not been given, the subject of Tractate Demay ²³⁸ This explains the meaning of the word “demay”. The correct text is in Maˋaser Šeni

“And make an eruv, and store away hot food²⁹.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this is about eruv of courtyards²⁴. Sadducees considered pharisaic eruvim as Sabbath desecrations.. But eruvim of domains are a matter of biblical law²³⁹ 35:1–8. An Eruv Teḥumin is a personal action in which a person renounces his right to go outside town in one direction and in compensation may go 4000 cubits in the other direction. If another town would be reached in this space, that town also becomes part of his Sabbath domain. This action clearly involves public domain by biblical standards (even though the restriction to 2000 cubits may be purely rabbinical) and therefore must be completed before sundown..

footnotes: ²⁹ Hot food to be kept warm for the Sabbath noon meal in insulating material as explained in Chapter 4. ²⁴ The symbolic sharing of space, a courtyard or a dead-end street, by several families turning the space into their private domain with regard to the laws of the Sabbath; details are the subject of Tractate Eruvin ²³⁹ Since adjacent courtyards and dead-end streets are not thoroughfares, there is no biblical prohibition involved in declaring common ground as common private domain. The Sabbath domain belonging to a town is a rectangle oriented North-South and East-West containing the entire town and another 2000 cubits outside town in each of the cardinal directions, inspired by the description of Levitic cities in Num.