MISHNAH: A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath. Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath¹ and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for one purification sacrifice only. But one who knows the principle of the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths² is obligated for every single Sabbath; and one who knows that it is the Sabbath and performed many works on many Sabbaths is obligated for every single work. One who performs many works similar to one work³ is obligated only for one purification sacrifice.

footnotes: ¹ A Jew who never has heard of the laws of the Sabbath. The rule is formulated in terms of oblivion because all laws of purification sacrifices require an element of oblivion. ² In error. ³ Actions which are classified under the same category of the official 39 prohibitions of the Sabbath.

HALAKHAH: “A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath,” etc. What means “comprehensive”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than the principle of the Sabbatical year, since the Sabbath falls on everything but the Sabbatical year¹² falls on agricultural work in the Land only. There we have stated¹³ 7:1.: “A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbatical year.” What means “a comprehensive principle”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than tithes, for the Sabbatical year falls on human food and animal feed but tithes apply to human food only¹⁴ 1:1: “anything that is food, is guarded, and grows from the earth, is subject to tithes.” Babli 68a. G everywhere reads not מַכָנִיסוֹ “what one stores” but מִיכָּנָסוֹ “what he had stored” making the obligation of tithes dependent on the action of the individual.. Bar Qappara stated: a comprehensive principle they said about tithes¹⁵ 1:1 which is stated as “a principle” is “a comprehensive principle” for bar Qappara. Babli 68a.. What means “a comprehensive principle”? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than peah. for tithes apply both to food that is stored and to food which is not stored, but peah applies only to food used as stored staple¹⁶ 1:4: “They established a principle for peah: Everything that is food, is treated as private property, grows from the earth, is harvested at one time, and is stored, is subject to peah.” Peah is the corner of the field which is reserved for the poor and may not be taken by the farmer.. Some want to say, what means “comprehensive”? From here that there are derivatives¹⁷.

footnotes: ¹² Sabbath prohibitions refer to all kinds of work everywhere; Sabbatical prohibitions refer only to agricultural work in the Land of Israel. ¹³ Mishnah Ševiˋit ¹⁴ Mishnah Maˋserot ¹⁵ Our Mishnah Maˋserot ¹⁶ Mishnah Peah ¹⁷ There are categories and sub-categories as for the Sabbath. This is the preferred explanation of the Babli, 68a.

We have stated: “Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” They stated in the House of Rebbi: Anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath¹⁸ 1(7).. Rebbi Eleazar follows our Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan follows what was stated in the House of Rebbi. But Rebbi Eliezer said, “anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.¹⁹ 3:10 (quoted later in the Chapter, Note 48) he states that one who performs many works of the same category on many Sabbaths in one oblivion is liable for separate sacrifices for each occasion; opposed by R. Aqiba. This refers to the second case trated in Mishnah 1.” Therefore if he does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath is he not liable? Since Rav stated our Mishnah and explained it: who is the one who does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath? A child who was taken prisoner among the Gentiles²⁰. This implies that both versions are the same²¹. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Therefore (if he does not) [if he did]²² know and forgot he is liable. Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once²³. This implies that both versions are the same. They asked before Rebbi Yasa’s son: What did you hear from your father about Rebbi Yose²⁴? He said, following Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥizqiah told them, he did not say so. But Rebbi Simon bar Zavda was simply with Rebbi Yose’s son and heard from him following Rebbi Eliezer²⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁸ The only other place in which this formulation appears in our sources is Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Pereq ¹⁹ In Mishnah Keritut ²⁰ He never heard of a Sabbath prohibition. ²¹ There is no material difference between the Mishnah text and the formulation of the House of Rebbi. ²² The text in [brackets] from G is clearly the correct one, not the one in (parentheses) from the Leiden ms. ²³ As will be stated in the next paragraph, all actions in one episode of oblivion trigger only one obligation of sacrifice. ²⁴ R. Yose ben Ḥanina. ²⁵ The formulation in the Mishnah is not practice.

From where these things? He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one, to obligate for each one separately; and did these, to obligate for all of them together²⁶. 4:2 reads: If a person should sin inadvertently against any of the prohibitions of the Eternal and did one of these. The complicated structure of this verse is analyzed in detail in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parshata 1, Pereq 1. The analysis of the Yerushalmi is attributed in the Babli 103b to R. Yose ben Ḥanina, mentioned at the end of the preceding Paragraph. Echoes of the discussion in Sifra are in the Babli 70a. The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one, we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these, all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated?. Of these, to obligate for derivatives²⁷. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken²⁸ 6:1, it cannot be emended. It seems that Rav (not Rebbi) Zakkai swam crossing the rivers on his way to Palestine.; he is liable only once²⁹ Chapter 7:11 Note 256. Worshipping strange deities in the way prescribed for Jewish worship in all its forms is one and the same offense. But worshipping strange deities in their own characteristic ways is a separate offense for each deity.. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one³⁰. 4:2 could be interpreted to refer only to idolatry the answer seems to be in the negative, since for R. Zakkai there are only single offenses (one) and no general category (these) whereas for R. Joḥanan the situation is the inverse, in contrast to the Sabbath when liability for a sacrifice can be triggered either by a single action (one) or by a multiplicity of different actions all falling under the same category (these).. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them³¹ 7:11 Notes 252 ff.. Like prostration to obligate for partial action³². Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written³³. 4:3., if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people … he has to bring a bull. This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat³⁴ Mishnah 2:8.. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives³⁵. to be burned on the altar. There are no extensions or derivatives.. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse³⁶. 18. In addition in Lev. 20:18 the sex act is defined at touching of sexual organs; the only actions triggering the liability for a sacrifice are explicitly spelled out in the verses; there are no categories nor derivatives. Cf. Sanhedrin 7:5 (Notes 72–85).. The colleagues say, a Sabbath it is for the Eternal, to obligate for each single Sabbath³⁷. 23:3. Since the attempt to derive the rules of the Mishnah from Lev. 4:2 ran into difficulties, they propose a direct interpretation of verses referring to the Sabbath only.. Rebbi Ila said, it is written³⁸. 35:2. The Sabbath is mentioned in the singular.: Anybody doing work on it shall by put to death, not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate³⁹ 3:3 Note 66). Less than minimum amounts eaten at different times do not trigger liability. On the other hand, once liability was triggered within one period of oblivion, it automatically covers all other offenses of the same kind during the same period of oblivion. The question is now asked whether if an inadvertent desecration of the Sabbath triggered the obligation of a sacrifice and the perpetrator did not become aware of his offense before committing the same also on another Sabbath, he is liable for only one or for several sacrifices?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun⁴⁰ said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.

footnotes: ²⁶ Lev ²⁷ The last question is easily answered for the Sabbath. Later in the Chapter the forbidden actions on the Sabbath are described by 39 categories. The particular actions labelling the categories are called אַב מְלָאכָה “primary actions”; any other action subsumed under the same category is a תּוֹלְדָה “derivative”. All actions subsumed under the same category are considered identical in some abstract sense even if they actually are very different; e. g. plucking feathers from a bird is forbidden as a derivative of shearing. Any one of the actions subsumed under one category triggers the liability for a sacrifice; it is not necessary that all actions carrying the same label be acted on. On the other hand, most actions trigger liability only if a certain minimum of work was done, as will be detailed in the following Chapters; an action which is too insignificant remains forbidden but does not trigger liability for a sacrifice. ²⁸ The expression is difficult to understand since one does not cross rivers (in this case Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan) by hand but by boat. Since the expression is confirmed later in the Chapter and in Nazir ²⁹ Sanhedrin ³⁰ Since the question was raised whether Lev ³¹ Since in the Second Commandment prostration is mentioned before worship of strange deities it clearly is a separate offense. Cf. Sanhedrin ³² It is punishable even if not executed in the full manner prescribed for the Temple, lying down flat with outstretched arms and legs. ³³ Lev ³⁴ Horaiot ³⁵ Fat is forbidden if it is from an animal whose kind is acceptable as a sacrifice and which is of the kind exactly prescribed in Lev ³⁶ Forbidden sexual relations are exactly those described in Lev ³⁷ Lev ³⁸ Ex ³⁹ That Sabbaths do not combine means that if somebody did less than a punishable amount of work on one Sabbath and again less than a punishable amount the next Sabbath they do not add up to the liability for a sacrifice even if the actions were committed in the same period of oblivion of the rules of the Sabbath. In this the rules of the Sabbath parallel the rules of forbidden fat. Eating forbidden fat triggers the liability for a sacrifice only if a minimum was eaten within the time of a meal (defined as time needed to eat half a loaf of bread, Horaiot ⁴⁰ Since the father is known in the Babli as Rabin, the reading of G, בין, seems better than the reading everywhere in the Leiden ms., בון.

An adult who was taken captive among Gentiles. Rav and Samuel, one said, he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, but the other said, he keeps the Sabbath and counts six⁴¹. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Jacob: he counts six and keeps the Sabbath, five and keeps the Sabbath, four and keeps the Sabbath, three and keeps the Sabbath, two and keeps the Sabbath, one and keeps the Sabbath⁴². Rebbi Mana said, if he was abducted on Tuesday he makes the Sabbath (great was his power) [profane]⁴³. At the second period he makes the Sabbath (if not to wonder) [only the eighth]⁴⁴. Therefore he should worry about all days, as by the following: If he preliminarily married a woman in Elam⁴⁵. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he worries about all women. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not worry about all women. There he has a fix, he may marry a convert, he may marry a freedwoman⁴⁶. Here what do you have? There, they are saying, he worries about all days and works for the necessities of life⁴⁷ § 15..

footnotes: ⁴¹ He is now living in a society which knows no weeks. From the moment in which he realizes that he has lost track of the days of the week in one opinion he presumes that this day be Sunday and keeps his week or he presumes that it is Sabbath and continues from there. Babli 69b, the dispute is between a student and the son of Rav. ⁴² Then he is presumed to keep some Sabbath correctly. ⁴³ In this and the next sentence the Leiden text (in parentheses) is incomprehensible; the Genizah text [in brackets] makes approximate sense. Rebbi Mana sets out to prove that R. Naḥman’s scheme does not work. ⁴⁴ It is true that if he realizes his problem on Sunday then he correctly keeps the next Sabbath. If he realizes it on Monday, then he keeps the second Sabbath. But if it is Tuesday then it does not work. All the presumed Sabbaths of Rav Naḥman are on workdays. If we presume that Rav Naḥman’s scheme is periodic, that he pauses after 6,5,4,3,2,1,6,5,4,3,2,1,6,… days then his Sabbath will only be correct in the second period, in fact the seventh of his Sabbaths in the eighth try. In the following scheme the days of the week are numbered (Sabbath = 7) and Rav Naḥman’s Sabbaths are given in bold face:3 4 5 6 7 ׀׀ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ׀׀1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ׀׀ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ׀׀1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ׀׀ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7׀׀The correct observation of the Sabbath first occurs in the second circuit, the eighth try, as spelled out in the text. ⁴⁵ Liebermann correctly conjectures that “in Elam” is an error for בָּעוֹלָם “in the world”. He appointed an agent to get him a wife; the agent performed the preliminary marriage to him but he knows neither her identity nor her location. He has to presume that any woman he meets is either his wife or a close relative of hers. ⁴⁶ Who was recently converted or freed. ⁴⁷ Babli 69b. Or zaruaˋ Šabbat

There, we have stated⁴⁸ 3:10.: “Rebbi Aqiba said, I asked Rebbi Eliezer: If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what⁴⁹? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one separately? He told him, he is liable for each occurrence separately by an argument de minore ad majus. Since for the menstruating woman, which does not entail many ramifications nor many purification sacrifices,⁵⁰ he is liable for each single occurrence⁵¹ 3:7, a statement of Rabban Gamliel and R. Joshua. A person having 5 wives slept with each of them when she was impure in one period of oblivion is liable for 5 sacrifices., for the Sabbath which has many ramifications⁵² and many purification sacrifices⁵³ it is only logical that he be liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the menstruating woman where there are two warnings, for he is warned about a menstruating woman and the menstruating woman is warned about him⁵⁴. 18:19. The prohibition for the female is implied by the fact that punishment for an infraction is equal for male and female, Lev. 20:18. There can be no punishment unless there is a prohibition., what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one warning⁵⁵? He said to me, one who has intercourse with an underage girl shall prove it, where there is only one warning,⁵⁶ but he is liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the underage girl who even though there is no warning now there will be one in the future⁵⁷, what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one [warning] whether now or in the future. He told me, one having intercourse with an animal shall prove it. I said to him, the animal is like the Sabbath⁵⁸.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ Mishnah Keritut ⁴⁹ As the discussion of this Mishnah will point out, it is not stated whether the oblivion refers to the fact that it is the Sabbath, or that this kind of work is forbidden, or both. Therefore the answer cannot be given by quoting the second part of Mishnah 1 in this Chapter. ⁵⁰ There is only one prohibition and for one sex act one cannot become liable for more than one sacrifice. ⁵¹ In Mishnah Keritut ⁵² There are categories and derivatives requiring one and the same sacrifice. ⁵³ There are different categories, each one requiring a separate sacrifice. ⁵⁴ The prohibition for the male is spelled out in Lev ⁵⁵ Since the Sabbath is not a person, only the human is prohibited from violating the Sabbath. ⁵⁶ Since an underage person cannot be criminally liable, warnings do not apply to her. The intercourse prohibited with an underage girl is one which either is incestuous or adulterous. ⁵⁷ An underage girl is a female; prohibitions apply to adult females. ⁵⁸ It remains unresolved how many sacrifices are due from a man having intercourse with several animals while he is oblivious of the prohibition of bestiality.

Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work⁵⁹. About this we have stated “many works”. He is not liable because of Sabbaths. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work⁶⁰. About this we have stated “many Sabbaths”. He is not liable because of the works. Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not concede to him⁶¹? Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once²³. This implies that he⁶² did not concede to him. (It was) [Now]⁶³ Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not (instruct) [concede to]⁶⁴ him? Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa, a baraita implies that he did not concede to him, as it was stated⁶⁵ 1(7)., “ ‘I know that it is the Sabbath, I know that this is work. But I do not know that this is work for which one becomes liable to extirpation⁶⁶.’ If he did work of several categories he is liable for every single work⁶⁷. If he did work of one category only, he is liable for every episode of oblivion if there were many oblivions, but if all was one oblivion he is liable only once.” Since he did not quote this as an objection it implies that he did not concede to him⁶⁸ disagrees with him, he must have known that the latter disagrees. (In Sifra the entire theory is attributed to R. Yose of the school of R. Aqiba, two generations after R. Eliezer). G ends here..

footnotes: ⁵⁹ He knows that it is the Sabbath but he does not know that work is forbidden on the Sabbath. Since purification offerings only are possible for inadvertent sins, he becomes liable by doing the work if later he learns that the work was forbidden. ⁶⁰ He knows all the laws of the Sabbath but forgot that the day was a Sabbath. If he does work he becomes liable once for each Sabbath spent in oblivion even if he does work of many categories. ⁶¹ Did R. Aqiba convince R. Eliezer or vice versa? ²³ As will be stated in the next paragraph, all actions in one episode of oblivion trigger only one obligation of sacrifice. ⁶² Since the rabbis follow R. Aqiba, R. Eliezer cannot have conceded. ⁶³ The text of G [in brackets] seems better than the Leiden text (in parentheses). ⁶⁴ At all occurrences the scribe first wrote הורי and then corrected to הודי except on this one occasion. Therefore also here the text of G [in brackets] is the correct one. ⁶⁵ Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Pereq ⁶⁶ Purification sacrifices are possible only for inadvertent infractions punishable either by extirpation or by death. ⁶⁷ Every single category of work which he did. ⁶⁸ Since R. Aqiba did not point out to R. Eliezer that the Tanna of the baraita

Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work⁵⁹. Therefore, in the case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work even Rebbi Eliezer should agree with Rebbi Aqiba that he is liable only once⁶⁹., that he did not realize that it was Sabbath, there should be only one liability.. But then Rebbi Aqiba should have objected, is there not the case of intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work⁷⁰, where there are many ramifications or many purification sacrifices and you are instructing that he is liable only once! Since he did not object in this way it implies that one case is like the other case⁷¹.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ He knows that it is the Sabbath but he does not know that work is forbidden on the Sabbath. Since purification offerings only are possible for inadvertent sins, he becomes liable by doing the work if later he learns that the work was forbidden. ⁶⁹ Since a purification offering is possible only for error and the error was about one thing only, viz ⁷⁰ Clearly here one has to read: error regarding the Sabbath and intent regarding work. This was the scribe’s text; the error is the corrector’s. ⁷¹ In every case does R. Eliezer require a separate sacrifice for each infraction of the Sabbath. The difference between the two versions in the name of Rav Ḥisda is purely semantic; they agree in fact.

Now Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. Therefore about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work even Rebbi Aqiba will agree with Rebbi Eliezer that he is liable for every single one⁷². Then Rebbi Eliezer should have objected to him, is there not error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the works⁷³ where there are not many ramifications and many purification sacrifices and you are agreeing with me that he is liable for every single one. Since he did not object in this way it implies that one case is like the other case⁷⁴.

footnotes: ⁷² Since the question was about works which all belong to the same category, R. Eliezer must hold that the knowledge of which day of the week it is separates one Sabbath from the next; if the person did not know that a certain kind of work is forbidden, each Sabbath creates a new and separate infraction and therefore liability. ⁷³ Read: Intent regarding the Sabbath and error regarding work; corrector’s error. ⁷⁴ One arrives at the same conclusion as before.

Now Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. Do you not catch him because of the error regarding the Sabbath⁷⁵ 16a.? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Abba: He asked him two questions. About intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work that he be liable for every single one. In case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding works does one treat the derivatives like that main item⁷⁶.? Rebbi Jacob ben Dasai said, and in the House of Rebbi it was stated so: “If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or once for each single one?” Many works of the same category, this describes intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. Many Sabbaths all of the same category, this describes error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work⁷⁷.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ This is the same question as before, Note 69, as introduction to the opinion of R. Ḥizqiah in the name of R. Abba. Babli Keritut ⁷⁶ This introduces a new question. We agree that R. Eliezer holds that each Sabbath is a new entity whose desecration triggers liability. Does he agree that on one Sabbath all infractions of the same category cause only one liability or do actions which are different, even though classified in the same category, trigger different liabilities? Then more than 39 liabilities could be created on one Sabbath, against the Mishnah here and in Keritut ⁷⁷ This subsumes both opinions attributed to Rav Ḥisda.

Now Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding works. Can anybody become liable intentionally⁷⁸? You superimpose the error regarding works over the intent regarding the Sabbath⁷⁹. Similarly, in case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work you superimpose the error regarding the Sabbath over the intent regarding works to hold him liable for each single occurrence. Does Rebbi Eliezer not accept one, to obligate for each one separately¹. 4:2 reads: If a person should sin inadvertently against any of the prohibitions of the Eternal and did one of these. The complicated structure of this verse is analyzed in detail in Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra II) Parshata 1, Pereq 1. The analysis of the Yerushalmi is attributed in the Babli 103b to R. Yose ben Ḥanina, mentioned at the end of the preceding Paragraph. Echoes of the discussion in Sifra are in the Babli 70a. The questions raised about the verse are twofold. If it had simply said and did one, we would have inferred that every single infraction needs a separate sacrifice. If it had said and did these, all infractions committed in one state of inadvertence would be covered by one sacrifice. The mention of one in parallel with these creates a seeming contradiction. In addition, in each case the prefix מ “of” in standard rabbinic interpretation is read as “not all”. Then what does it mean that a single prohibition is partially violated?⁸⁰, etc., is missing since the quote of part of the baraita from Sifra is intended to refer to all its parts.? It was found stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: An adult who was abducted among Gentiles⁴¹ is liable for each single one⁸¹.

footnotes: ⁷⁸ Intentional sins can never be atoned by a sacrifice. ⁷⁹ Even though he knows that it is the Sabbath and he intentionally does the work, if he does not know that this particular action is forbidden, it is an unintentional sin and creates liability for a sacrifice. ¹ Lev ⁸⁰ Probably the reference to these ⁴¹ He is now living in a society which knows no weeks. From the moment in which he realizes that he has lost track of the days of the week in one opinion he presumes that this day be Sunday and keeps his week or he presumes that it is Sabbath and continues from there. Babli 69b, the dispute is between a student and the son of Rav. ⁸¹ For each single Sabbath.

What is the difference between intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works or in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional about works⁸²? Rebbi Yose said, why intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works makes him liable for each single one? For if you tell him that this is [forbidden] work, he stops doing it and does other works. Why in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional about works makes him liable only once? For if you tell him that it is a Sabbath, he stops immediately. What if he is in error in both respects? Rav Hamnuna said, he is liable only once. Rebbi Zeˋira said to him, is that not a case a fortiori? If he is intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works, is he not liable for each single one? Because there was added for him the error regarding work on the Sabbath; the error about works is lost⁸³ 62a, Ševuot 19a,26a, Keritut 3b).?

footnotes: ⁸² This now refers to Mishnah 1 in this Chapter, as R. Yose explains. In the Babli 70a the same explanation is given in the name of Rav Naḥman. ⁸³ Babli 70b disagrees since the final decision by Ravina follows Rav Hamnuna here (Sanhedrin

Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: If one harvested half the volume of a dried fig on this Sabbath, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig on another Sabbath, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine⁸⁴? Is it possible to say Sabbaths divide, Sabbaths combine⁸⁵? Do not trays divide and trays combine⁸⁶ 3:9where R. Joshua holds that somebody who illegally eats from the meat of one sacrifice prepared in five different dishes is liable for a separate purification sacrifice for every dish of which he ate the volume of an olive. On the other hand, if of two separate dishes he illegally ate half the volume of an olive each, he is liable for one sacrifice. This is a case where dishes both combine for liability and divide liabilities.? He answered, I do not know the reason for the tray. Is this not a baraita? If he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable⁸⁷. Rebbi Azariah said before Rebbi Mana, explain it by intent. He said to him, is this not an argument a fortiori? Since intent neither divides nor combines⁸⁸, error which does not divide a fortiori does not combine.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ Since in all he harvested an amount which creates liability. In this version, there are two reasons which invite a negative answer; the actions happened on different days, and the circumstances of the errors are different. ⁸⁵ The second sentence in Mishnah 1 clearly states that for a person who knows the principle of Sabbath rest, even if he is not aware of the day, separate Sabbaths require separate sacrifices. Therefore the fact that the actions happened on different days should be enough to answer the question in the negative. ⁸⁶ This argument, also mentioned in the Babli 71a, refers to Mishnah Keritut ⁸⁷ A later Mishnah will declare that writing on the Sabbath creates liability if one writes two letters. For R. Joshua writing one letter on the Sabbath never creates liability. For R. Eliezer the reason that two letters create liability is that they may form words. For him a letter which forms a word when added to a preexisting letter is word-forming and creates liability (Chapter 13, Note 000). ⁸⁸ Since intentional sin cannot be atoned for by a sacrifice it is irrelevant for creation of liabilities.

Rebbi Ḥanania said, this is not what he said but he harvested half the volume of a dried fig in the morning, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig in the evening, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine⁸⁹? Rebbi Mana said, even though Rebbi Yose did not address this, he said something similar. If one ate half the volume of an olive being aware of the Sanctuary but oblivious of impurity and half the volume of an olive being oblivious of the Sanctuary but aware of impurity; do the oblivions combine⁹⁰ 2:1 Note 51.?

footnotes: ⁸⁹ This version, where all action happens on one and the same day, is reported in the Babli 71a, where also it is reported that R. Zeˋira holds that since the rules for purification sacrifices are different in both cases they cannot combine. ⁹⁰ Ševuot

One understands Sabbath since weekdays come in the meantime. What may you say about the menstruating woman⁹¹, in particular the last argument between R. Aqiba and R. Eliezer where R. Eliezer asserts that even with underage girls every forbidden sex act creates a new liability. It is agreed that every single Sabbath creates new liabilities since the weekdays in between create awareness of days that are not Sabbaths. Similarly one may argue that having sex with the same woman in different menstrual periods creates separate liabilities since while the male may be oblivious continuously, the woman certainly knows the differences between the periods and she is bound by the law as he is. But an underage girl is not obligated by any law; therefore intercourse with her during different periods in one period of oblivion should create only a single liability.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, explain it about an underage menstruating woman where days of purity came in the meantime⁹² even if he does not know when his wife is impure is separately liable for intercourse in different periods which are separated by lengthy intervals of purity. Babli Keritut 17a.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, so did he ask him: If he came to one menstruating woman five times in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one? He answered him, he is liable for each single one. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is [not] so⁹³. Rebbi Mana asked the following: Did not Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once23? Then here also⁹⁴ he should be liable only once. Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is not so⁹⁵. Like the rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Nisa: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, and all that is derived from it as all practice follows Rebbi Eliezer²⁵.

footnotes: ⁹¹ This refers back to the Mishnah in Ketubot ⁹² Since we assert that a person who knows about the laws of the Sabbath but does not know which days are Sabbaths is liable separately for each Sabbath on which he worked, we also should assert that a man who knows the laws of niddah ⁹³ As the text (Note 95) shows later, the text in brackets has to be added. One cannot translate “Rebbi Aḥa (4th generation) in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina (2nd) said, so did R. Mana (5th) ask”. R. Aḥa asserts that we do not accept R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon’s statement. ⁹⁴ In the case of the man married to an underage girl each period creates only one liability. ⁹⁵ Cf. Note 93. ²⁵ The formulation in the Mishnah is not practice.

MISHNAH: There are 39 categories of work. He who ploughs, who sows, who harvests, who binds into sheaves, who threshes, and who winnows, who selects, who grinds, and who sifts, who makes dough, and who bakes⁴. 35:1–3, one concludes that the prohibited actions are those needed for building the Tabernacle and the Service performed in it. The first series (11 categories) describes actions needed to prepare cereal offerings and the shew-bread. The second series (13 categories) catalogues the making of the priestly garments.. He who shears wool, who bleaches it, who cards it, who dyes it, who spins it, who prepares the loom, who ties two threads as warp, who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties. Also who sews two stitches, who tears in order to sew two stitches. He who catches a deer, who slaughters it, who skins it, who salts it, who rubs it clean⁵, who tans it, who cuts it, who writes two letters, and who erases in order to write two letters⁶. He who builds, and who tears down, who extinguishes fire, and who lights fire, and who hits with a hammer⁷, and who transports from one domain to another⁸; these are the 39 categories of work.

footnotes: ⁴ As noted earlier, since the Sabbath prohibition is repeated at the start of the rules of building the Tabernacle, Ex ⁵ To remove both hair outside and remainders of flesh inside to prepare for the tanning process which turns hide into leather. ⁶ This series of 9 categories describes both sacrifices and the production of writing material which in pre-Mishnaic times was mostly leather. ⁷ A name for the formal end of any production process. ⁸ This is mentioned last because in most cases it is a weak prohibition since “public domain” into which one may not transport by biblical standards is exists mostly outside a built-up area.

HALAKHAH: “The categories of work are 39.” From where that the categories⁹⁶ of work are from the Torah? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the thirty-nine occurrences of מלאכה in the Torah⁹⁷. They asked before Rebbi Aḥa, everywhere where מלאכות is written it should count for two! Rebbi Ashian said, Rebbi Aḥa checked by eye the entire Torah and did not find this word written⁹⁸. The following is necessary: He came into the house to do his work⁹⁹. 39:11. It must be counted even though the word is in suffixed form and does not refer to the Sabbath. is with them. God completed on the Seventh Day His work which He did¹⁰⁰. 2:2., is with them. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Six days you shall eat unleavened bread and on the seventh day you should not do work¹⁰¹. 16:8, the last occurrence of the word in the Torah. comes to complete the 39 “works” written in the Torah.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ A hint that exactly 39 categories of work should be forbidden on the Sabbath (i. e., that a maximum of 39 sacrifices would be required for unintentional violations of the Sabbath rest.) ⁹⁷ The count works out if one counts all occurrences of מְלָאכָה together with its suffixed forms מְלַאכְתּוֹ, etc., but omitting all construct states מְלֶאכֶת. ⁹⁸ The plural מְלָאכוֹת is not found in the Pentateuch. Therefore each occurrence of the word counts as one. ⁹⁹ Gen ¹⁰⁰ Gen ¹⁰¹ Deut

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani: Corresponding to the 39 times “service” and “work” is written about the Tabernacle¹⁰². and Num. Here again for the word עֲבוֹדָה the base form and the suffixed forms are counted, but the construct state עֲבוֹדַת is not..

footnotes: ¹⁰² In Ex

Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it does not say “this is the word” but these are the words.¹⁰³ 35:1, the introductory paragraph which indicates that the Sabbath prohibitions may not be violated in building the Tabernacle, and which therefore forms the basis of the list of the 39 categories from an analysis of the activities needed to build the Tabernacle and to serve in it.” “Word”, “words,” “words”. From here about categories and derivatives¹⁰⁴ published by L. Ginzberg in שרידי הירושלמי p. 316 the reading is מכאן לאבות מלאכות “from here for categories”, the plural only indicates that there are different categories of work on the Sabbath.). Rebbi Ḥanina of Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Abbahu. Alef is one, Lamed is 30, He is five, “word” is one, “words” are two¹⁰⁵ (numerical value if each letter is used as a numeral in the Alexandrian system) of אלה is 36; one has somehow to find another 3 to reach the traditional number of 39.. From here the 39 “works” written in the Torah. The rabbis of Caesarea say, at its place nothing is missing, א is one, ל 30 , ח 8. The rabbis never hesitate to identify ה and ¹⁰⁶ 7:6 Note 113, Maˋaser Šeni 5:3, Soṭah 8:4 Note 179. In all other occurrences of substitution of ח for ה one obtains a word which makes sense; this cannot be said here (Babli Berakhot 32a).ח.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ Ex. ¹⁰⁴ The plural indicates that each category stands for many different actions, Babli 70a, 97b. (In the Appendix to Yalqut Šimony ¹⁰⁵ The gematria ¹⁰⁶ Cf. Peah

Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish worked on this Chapter for three and one half years¹⁰⁷. They produced 39 derivatives for each single one. Where they found a way to include it they included it¹⁰⁸. Where they did not find a way to include it they classified it as “who hits with a hammer.¹¹⁰⁹”

footnotes: ¹⁰⁷ They made a list of all actions traditionally forbidden on the Sabbath. ¹⁰⁸ Where they could they classified them according to the official categories. ¹ A name for the formal end of any production process. ¹⁰⁹ A catch-all category for actions difficult to categorize. It is clear that the list of prohibited actions must have preceded the classification.

The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya worked on this Chapter for six months. They produced six derivatives for each single one. The sons of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya follow the method of their father, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated¹¹⁰ is in the Babli 73b, Tosephta 9:17.: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all [liable] because of harvesting.¹¹¹” Rebbi Sidor¹¹² said, Jehudah the son of the rabbi¹¹³ is a rather short Mishnah Tractate of only 6 Chapters accompanied by Tosephta of 3 Chapters. studied Makhširin for six months. In the end there came a student of Rebbi Simai and asked him, but he could not answer. He¹¹⁴ said, it is recognizable that this one never passed by the gate of the Torah.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Quoted again later in the discussion of Mishnah 2, after Note 267. The Babylonian version of this baraita ¹¹¹ These are six actions classified under the same category. “Tearing out” refers among other things to tearing out hairs. ¹¹² His name seems to have been Isidor; changed to avoid the mention of pagan deities. ¹¹³ The Elder R. Ḥiyya. Makhširin ¹¹⁴ R. Simai’s student. The important one of R. Ḥiyya’s twins was Ḥizqiah, not Jehudah.

“The categories of work are 39.” For which purpose? For if he did all of them in one oblivion he is liable only once¹¹⁵.

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ This statement contradicts Mishnah 1 and the quote in the Babli (69a) as well as a quote from the Yerushalmi (not in our text) by R. Salomon Adani; it has to be changed into “is liable for each single one.”

¹¹⁶ 6:1 but the origin is here as will be seen in the commentary. The introductory statement is from earlier in the Chapter, Notes 28–30. The text in braces was copied from there and has no place here. Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he¹¹⁷ not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work¹¹⁸. 20:8., principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places¹¹⁹. 35:3., a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty¹²⁰ Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli 70a appears as R. Nathan.) Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qamma 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menaḥem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים להתפתחות של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original tannaitic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions. (A different interpretation of the verses is in the Babli 70a).. Also here: Do not worship them¹²¹. 20:4., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself¹²¹. 20:4., a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty¹²⁰ Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli 70a appears as R. Nathan.) Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qamma 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menaḥem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים להתפתחות של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original tannaitic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions. (A different interpretation of the verses is in the Babli 70a).. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail¹²² 6b, Bava qamma 85a, Menaḥot 55b, Niddah 33a.. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power¹²³. 34:14.? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned¹²⁴. 22:19. For this argument the reference to Elohim is taken to apply to idols. The masoretic vocalization applying a definite article must refer to God in His function as Judge, God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world, to Whom propitiatory sacrifices are forbidden; sacrifices are legitimate only if offered to YHWH, God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace. This is the interpretation adopted at the end of the paragraph. In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not]¹²⁵, needed for an understanding of the text. infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar¹²⁶. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle¹²⁷ had been mentioned after worshipping, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”, therefore the 9 principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle.. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven¹²⁸.

footnotes: ¹¹⁶ This paragraph and the next are also in Nazir ¹¹⁷ The idol worshipper. ¹¹⁸ Ex ¹¹⁹ Ex ¹²⁰ A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra ¹²¹ Ex ¹²¹ Ex ¹²⁰ A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra ¹²² In the same sentence. Cf. Babli Pesaḥim ¹²³ Ex ¹²⁴ Ex ¹²⁵ Added from the text in Nazir ¹²⁶ Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex. 20:5. ¹²⁷ If prostrating ¹²⁸ The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment.

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily¹²⁹; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work¹³⁰. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned¹²⁴. 22:19. For this argument the reference to Elohim is taken to apply to idols. The masoretic vocalization applying a definite article must refer to God in His function as Judge, God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world, to Whom propitiatory sacrifices are forbidden; sacrifices are legitimate only if offered to YHWH, God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace. This is the interpretation adopted at the end of the paragraph. In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.. Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything¹³¹, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath¹³² 6b, this is a Tannaitic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Wayyaqhel.. What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements¹³³. 35:29.. Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity,¹³⁴. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9 rule. and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs¹³⁵.

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all work forbidden on the Sabbath. ¹³⁰ Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances. ¹²⁴ Ex ¹³¹ Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan. ¹³² In the Babli, Yebamot ¹³³ Num ¹³⁴ Since the argument is based on Num ¹³⁵ It is axiomatic that the Torah contains no unnecessary statements. If an item is singled out and there is no apparent reason for this one has to conclude that anything to be inferred about this particular item applies to all similar cases.

This implies that one item which was mentioned separately by necessity does not divide¹³⁶. If it was mentioned not by necessity it divides¹³⁷. If two items were mentioned separately, do they divide? Let us hear from the following: From where that he transgresses a prohibition whoever brings to the altar meat of a purification offering¹³⁸, or meat of a reparation offering, or meat of most holy offerings¹³⁹, or meat from simply holy offerings¹⁴⁰. Chapter 3., or the remainder of the ˋOmer¹⁴¹. 23:10. or the Two Breads¹⁴². 23:17., or the Shew Bread¹⁴³. 24:5–9., or remainders of cereal offerings¹⁴⁴. Chapter 2., or leaven¹⁴⁵, or date honey¹⁴⁶. 26:2.? The verse says¹⁴⁷. 2:12., for any leaven or any date honey you may not turn into smoke as a fire gift to the Eternal. Therefore anything that had been given to the fire is under “do not turn into smoke”¹⁴⁸.

footnotes: ¹³⁶ Since we found a reason why the item was mentioned one cannot infer that it is established as a separate rule. ¹³⁷ It is a general hermeneutical rule (No. 4) that two parallel items are just that, two separate items, and no additional inferences or comparisons are possible. If both are prohibitions, infractions generate separate liabilities. ¹³⁸ For purification and reparation offerings, blood is sprinkled on the altar and fat is burned. The meat must be eaten by the priests; it cannot be sacrificed. ¹³⁹ Most holy offerings are elevation offerings which are completely burned, purification and reparation offerings already mentioned, and the public well-being offering accompanying the Two Leavened Breads on Pentecost which introduce the season of the wheat harvest. Only the last item can be meant here, where the meat also must be eaten by the priests. ¹⁴⁰ The family sacrifices, of which only blood and fat are given to the altar, Lev ¹⁴¹ The barley offering on the Festival of Unleavened Bread, of which a handful is burnt on the altar and the remainder must be eaten by the priests. Lev ¹⁴² The Two Breads to be brought on Pentecost, to be eaten by the priests with the meat of the public well-being offering (Note 139). Lev ¹⁴³ Of which the incense is burned on the altar; the bread itself has to be eaten by the priests, Lev ¹⁴⁴ To be eaten by the priests after a handful was burned on the altar, Lev ¹⁴⁵ This again refers to the Two Breads, the only leavened offering. ¹⁴⁶ Which as an offering of first fruits is consumed by the priest after being presented to the altar but not brought onto the altar. Deut ¹⁴⁷ Lev ¹⁴⁸ If any part or appendix had to be given to the fire on the altar, there is a prohibition to put any of the remainder on the altar.

Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp¹⁴⁹. 20:22). The ramp was physically separated from the altar.? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar¹⁵⁰. 2:12: As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent., this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says¹⁵⁰. 2:12: As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent., on the altar they shall not be lifted. I could think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says¹⁵⁰. 2:12: As an offering of first fruits you may offer them to the Eternal but on the alter they shall not ascend for pleasant scent., as aroma smell, I was saying this only as an act of worship¹⁵¹ 1(11).. (He retorted,)¹⁵² quoted. them is a restriction¹⁵³. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. Because it is written them. If them had not been written, it would instruct¹⁵⁴. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not)¹⁵⁵ separate¹⁵⁶. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct¹⁵⁷..

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ The ramp on which the priest ascends to the altar since it is forbidden to build steps to the altar (Ex ¹⁵⁰ Lev ¹⁵⁰ Lev ¹⁵⁰ Lev ¹⁵¹ Since the ramp is inclined, stepping on the ramp in the course of a service would be “ascend for pleasant scent” and is forbidden. But depositing the first fruits on the ramp while the priest remains standing on the floor of the Temple court until he takes them to be consumed is not covered by the prohibition. Sifra Ṣaw Pereq ¹⁵² An addition from the corrector; this has to be deleted since the next paragraph shows that the speaker still is R. Joḥanan; the following is a continuation of the baraita ¹⁵³ Anything other than leaven and date honey is not covered by the verse. ¹⁵⁴ Then leaven and date honey would just be examples of items to be consumed by the priests. ¹⁵⁵ A correction by the scribe himself but in error as shown by the next paragraph. ¹⁵⁶ To prohibit burning on the altar what must be consumed by priests or laity it would have been enough to give one example. Since two were given, it implies that bringing to the altar is a separate sin for each of them (and equally all others). ¹⁵⁷ Since they are mentioned in one verse they are not two independent items; previous argument is not applicable. Since it is a single item it permits inference for all sancta

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp¹⁴⁹. 20:22). The ramp was physically separated from the altar.? He said to him, them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp¹⁵⁸ 37b/38a.. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides¹³⁵. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rebbi Ismael they do divide, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rebbi Ismael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide¹⁵⁹ 7:5 Notes 72–125. One of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical principles is that “a detail which was singled out from a general category was singled out not for itself but as an example for the entire category.” R. Abun bar Ḥiyya states that according to R. Ismael this holds only for a single detail, not for two or more.. As Rebbi Ismael stated, you shall neither divine nor cast spells¹⁶⁰. 19:26. Divination is an attempt to predict the future by magical means; spellbinding is practical witchcraft. Both are particular examples in the prohibition of witchcraft (Ex. 22:17), but no penalty is indicated.. Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class¹⁶¹ 7:5); in the absence of witnesses there is an automatic Divine verdict of extirpation. But the special cases of divination and spellbinding only trigger a verdict of extirpation; they are not cases for the human court. This illustrates R. Ismael’s principle. In Sifra Qedošim Pereq 6(2), R. Ismael and R. Aqiba identify divination and spellbinding as examples of make-believe witchcraft which according to Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:19 is not punishable by the human court. Automatically, these are separate examples of sins which require a purification sacrifice if done without criminal intent. A person who unintentionally acts as sorcerer, divinator, and spellbinder has to bring three sacrifices.? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case¹⁶².

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ The ramp on which the priest ascends to the altar since it is forbidden to build steps to the altar (Ex ¹⁵⁸ But on the altar one is liable at least in violation of a positive commandment. Babli Menaḥot ¹³⁵ It is axiomatic that the Torah contains no unnecessary statements. If an item is singled out and there is no apparent reason for this one has to conclude that anything to be inferred about this particular item applies to all similar cases. ¹⁵⁹ From here on and the next paragraphs there is a parallel (but not an exact copy) in Sanhedrin ¹⁶⁰ Lev ¹⁶¹ To use witchcraft is a capital crime (Mishnah Sanhedrin ¹⁶² Hermeneutical principle #5 on R. Ismael’s list states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. If both general expression and details declare the same., one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately.

In general by extirpation, the separate case by extirpation²; the word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that it is “general case and detail¹⁶²”, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since anybody who would perform any of these abomination s, they will be extirpated¹⁶³. 18:29. This verse decrees a general verdict of extirpation on any violation of sexual taboos spelled out in Lev.18, whether or not they are criminally punishable.. Was not his sister included in the general class¹⁶⁴. 18:9 but in the chapter about penalties, Lev. 20:17, the punishment is reserved for Heaven. and was mentioned separately of the general class to divide from the general class. Rebbi Eleazar objected, is it not written¹⁶⁵. 20:19. The wording might be slightly misleading., the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for he would touch his relative? He told him, this was mentioned separately for a reason, to judge by “touching”¹⁶⁶. 20:19 makes two statements: The punishment is reserved for Heaven and the sin is committed the moment the genitals of the parties touch, without any penetration. Mishnah Yebamot 6:2 extends the equivalence of touching and penetration to all sexual offenses.. He said to him, is it not written¹⁶⁷. 20:18. The implications are the same as for v. 19., a man who would lie with an unwell woman, uncover her nakedness and touch her source? He told him, this was mentioned separately for a reason, to judge the one “touching” as finishing. That you should not say, since he is liable for her [already]¹⁶⁸. 15 it is stated that simple touching (not sexual “touching”) a niddah causes impurity and is forbidden to the male, her prohibition differs materially from the other sexual taboos. for impurity we should not consider for him “touching” as finishing. Therefore it was necessary to mention (that he is liable for each single one.)¹⁶⁹, it seems to be original and explains that Lev. 18:29 decrees separate extirpation and, therefore, separate sacrifices for unintentional sin, for each separate category of incest. He said to him, is it not written¹⁷⁰. 20:20., a man who would sleep with his aunt, his uncle’s nakedness he uncovered? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness. But is it not written¹⁷¹. 20:21., a man who would marry his brother’s wife, she is separated? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness, as Rebbi Yudan¹⁷² 55a) applies both statements to both verses. said, where it is written childless they shall be¹⁷¹. 20:21., they will be without children, childless they shall die¹⁷⁰. 20:20., they bury their children.

footnotes: ² In error. ¹⁶² Hermeneutical principle #5 on R. Ismael’s list states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. If both general expression and details declare the same., one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately. ¹⁶³ Lev ¹⁶⁴ The sister is forbidden in Lev ¹⁶⁵ Lev ¹⁶⁶ Lev ¹⁶⁷ Lev ¹⁶⁸ The word was deleted by the corrector but it is necessary for the understanding of the text. Since in Lev ¹⁶⁹ This seems to be extraneous to the discussion. However, since the statement is also found in the Genizah text of Sanhedrin ¹⁷⁰ Lev ¹⁷¹ Lev ¹⁷² The Amora. His counterpart in the Babli is the third generation Amora Rabba (Rav Abba bar Naḥmani). The Babli (Yebamot ¹⁷¹ Lev ¹⁷⁰ Lev

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his maternal brother’s wife¹⁷⁴ 55a).. It is said here his aunt, and it is said there¹⁷⁵. 25:49. Since the subject of the entire Chapter is inheritance, it is understood that only the male line is addressed., either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall free him. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal sister¹⁷⁶: His paternal uncle’s wife. This is more appropriate for the argument here since his father’s or mother’s sisters are forbidden by Lev. 18:12,13 and the prohibition is unproblematic.. Also his brother’s wife¹⁷⁷ 18:16. can be inferred from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there¹⁷⁸. 20:21, the penalty clause referring to the prohibition formulated in Lev. 18:16., a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah¹⁷⁹. 18:19), to whom relations with her husband are forbidden, and to the person excommunicated (מְנֻדֶּה) who is separated from the community. In rabbinic Hebrew, the word נִדָּה is used exclusively for the menstruating woman; this is the reference made here, even though the argument is equally valid for the excommunicated person. (Babli Yebamot 54b.). Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his paternal brother’s wife may be permitted after being forbidden.¹⁸⁰ permitted after her purification; the brother’s wife may be permitted, viz., if the brother dies childless. In the latter case, “brother” means paternal brother (Yebamot 1:1, Note 45). This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden¹⁸¹.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁴ From punishment by loss of children (rejected in the Babli, Yebamot ¹⁷⁵ Lev ¹⁷⁶ In Sanhedrin ¹⁷⁷ Who is forbidden in Lev. ¹⁷⁸ Lev ¹⁷⁹ In biblical Hebrew, the meaning of the root נדד is the same as Arabic نحاد “to separate, to disperse”. This applies both to the menstruating woman (Lev ¹⁸⁰ The menstruating woman is ¹⁸¹ But for whom no punishment is spelled out.

But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it¹⁸², the name here is Joḥanan. But Ismael may be the correct attribution, since according to one opinion in the Babli, Zebaḥim 107b, this is R. Ismael’s position. S. Liebermann prefers to read “Eleazar” since the supporting argument is quoted in the latter’s name.? Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation¹⁸³. What is the reason? ¹⁸⁴. 30:32,33 regarding the holy oil. Only v. 33 is discussed.It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation¹⁸⁵ 14b.. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females¹⁸⁶. 20 both sexes are mentioned, the prohibition in Chapter 18 are all formulated for the male, except that the mention of extirpation is formulated (18:29) for “all persons”. Since the punishment for marrying one’s sister is extirpation (20:17) for both partners, it proves that the “persons” mentioned in 18:29 are both male and female.. Does Rebbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from do not come near¹⁸⁷. 18:6, the verse introducing incest prohibitions. While the verse starts אִישׁ אִישׁ it is agreed that the meaning is not “every man” but “every person”., equally male or female. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear¹⁸⁸, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity¹⁸⁹. 7:11–27. Impurity of sacrifices available to priests is treated in Lev. 22:1–16. One should assume that a priest who inadvertently eats a combination of impure well-being and other sacrifices has to bring separate purification sacrifices; but this is not the case.? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny¹⁹⁰ is larceny, it is punishable only if the monetary value of the misuse is at least one peruṭah. Misuse of one half peruṭah’s worth of Temple donations and one half peruṭah’s worth of sacrifices is not punishable., lest one be liable for them because of mushiness¹⁹¹, leftovers¹⁹², and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity¹⁹³ˋilah 4:1. The categories of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity do not apply to monetary gifts to the Temple. Anything donated to the Temple which is not a sacrifice or a Temple vessel is sold by the Temple treasurer and thereby reverts to fully profane status.,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split¹⁹⁵. Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁹⁶ text in Sanhedrin reads Ḥinena, preferable for chronological reasons. said, so it is. They split but do not combine¹⁹⁷ different for well-being and other sacrifices. This would agree with the Babli, Meˋilah 15a, that in fact well-being and purification offerings do not combine; the contrary statement of the Mishnah is classified as a rabbinic stringency..

footnotes: ¹⁸² This refers to the paragraph before the last, where R. Joḥanan explained that the sister had a special role in the list of incest prohibitions, to deduce that from the different levels of punishment the blanket decree of extirpation really represents separate decrees for each kind of infraction. In Sanhedrin ¹⁸³ This answers the question. It is rather frequent to find verses containing multiple prohibitions covered by one mention of extirpation where the context makes it clear that each single infraction triggers extirpation. ¹⁸⁴ Ex ¹⁸⁵ A person who inadvertently compounds aromatic oil in the same composition as holy oil and uses it on people has to bring two sacrifices. Babli, Makkot ¹⁸⁶ While in the punishments listed in Lev ¹⁸⁷ Lev ¹⁸⁸ Since אִישׁ אִישׁ really means “every man” it needs a supporting argument.מחוור is Babylonian spelling of Galilean מחובר “logically connected”; in the ms. it is a corrector’s change. ¹⁸⁹ Impurity of well-being sacrifices, the only ones available to lay people, is treated at length in Lev ¹⁹⁰ While misuse of all kinds of sancta ¹⁹¹ Sacrificing with the intent of eating of the sacrificial meat out of its time and place. ¹⁹² Eating of sacrificial meat after its allotted time. ¹⁹³ This shows that well-being and other sacrifices are equal in the hand of the Cohen, Mishnah Me ¹⁹⁵ Somebody committing simultaneous larceny involving gifts to the Temple and sacrifices has to atone separately for the two offenses. ¹⁹⁶ The Genizah ¹⁹⁷ R. Ḥanina’s statement is an assertion that the rules are

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail¹⁹⁸. ¹⁹⁹ 8:1, Notes 20–36 (Babli Moˋed qaṭan 3a). The punishment for violating a biblical prohibition for which no penalty is specified is by flogging. The problem is that ploughing is not specifically mentioned in Lev. 25. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal²⁰⁰. 25:2., a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune²⁰¹. 25:4., detail. Sowing and pruning were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since sowing and pruning are particular in that they perform work on the soil or on a tree, I have only what is work on the soil or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide²⁰²? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, are they not for making inferences? There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. Rebbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it¹. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it¹? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions²⁰³. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard²⁰⁴. 25:3., not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment²⁰⁵ 5:3, Note 73.. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment²⁰⁶ 25:3–4 represents a general principle followed by a detail (even if the principle is a positive commandment and the detail a prohibition) then by R. Ismael’s rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “general principle followed by detail: the general principle only applies to the detail”, nothing not mentioned in the verse is prohibited. Since R. Yose was R. Jeremiah’s student, he should be mentioned after his teacher (which he is both in Sanhedrin and Kilaim.). Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal²⁰⁰. 25:2.? That is for the prohibition implied by it²⁰⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ If a pentateuchal verse partially is an exhortation to action and partially a prohibition, it nevertheless forms a logical unit. ¹⁹⁹ From here to the end of the discussion there exists a parallel in Kilaim ²⁰⁰ Lev ²⁰¹ Lev ²⁰² To require separate atonement if performed inadvertently. ¹ During the Sabbatical year. ¹ During the Sabbatical year. ²⁰³ For R. Joḥanan, if ploughing is not sanctionable, digging for other than agricultural purposes certainly is permitted. But for R. Eleazar digging is work on the soil (in the language of his argument) but not in the field (as forbidden in the verse.) ²⁰⁴ Lev ²⁰⁵ As such it is not sanctionable; cf. Sanhedrin ²⁰⁶ He takes R. Eleazar literally at his word. If Lev. ²⁰⁰ Lev ²⁰⁷ This refers to R. Yose’s opinion, that sowing and pruning are forbidden in the Sabbatical but these and all other agricultural work are violations of the positive commandment to give rest to the Land.

I could think that they should be giving lashes for the addition²⁰⁸ 8:1, Notes 26–28.. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms²⁰⁹ˋit 1:1,2:1.. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar²¹⁰. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar:²¹¹ 70. Babli, Zebaḥim 106a. Beware of, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition²¹². And it is written²¹³. 12:13–14: Beware, and do not offer your elevation sacrifices at any place you see. Only at the place which the Eternal will choose … there you shall offer your elevation sacrifices and there you shall do everything which I am commanding you. This is a general prohibition followed by two specific positive commandments. The two verses are parallel, not logically consecutive as R. Eleazar would require.: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition²¹⁴, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment²¹⁵. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense²¹⁶. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action²¹⁷ 107b, according to one opinion this is R. Ismael’s position..

footnotes: ²⁰⁸ The prohibition of agricultural work after the harvest of the preceding year, different for work on the soil or on trees. This has nothing to do with the rules of the Sabbath or with general principles of hermeneutics; it is from Kilaim ²⁰⁹ Rabbinic prohibitions to prepare fields or prune trees after harvest in the year before the Sabbatical. The time tables are different for different kinds of work; Mishnah Ševi ²¹⁰ As explained in the preceding paragraph. ²¹¹ Sifry ²¹² This is a principle accepted in both Talmudim. A verse stating “beware of” or “lest” does not need an explicit “do not” in order to be classified as a prohibition. ²¹³ Deut ²¹⁴ A positive commandment to be performed at the Chosen Place and a prohibition everywhere else. ²¹⁵ As maintained by R. Joḥanan. ²¹⁶ The activities quoted here are all derivatives of ploughing (Babli 73b). ²¹⁷ In the Babli, Zebaḥim

Anywhere one stated categories there are derivatives. There, we have stated²¹⁸ 1:1.: “There are four categories of damages. The ox”, this is the horn. Goring and pushing are main categories. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If it bit, lay down, kicked, these are derivatives of the horn. There, we have stated²¹⁹ 1:1.: “The categories of impurity, the crawling animal and semen.” What are derivatives of crawling animals? Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Naḥum: pushings. What are pushings? Touching²²⁰ and Bava qamma categories are labels of sets of derivatives. But in Kelim, treating of impurity, derivative impurity is less infectuous than original impurity, and there are successive states of derivative impurity. The nature of אָב in impurity really is not comparable to the nature of אָב in the other two cases.. The main category of impurity makes everything impure, derivative impurity transmits impurity only to food and drink, or clay vessels²²¹ 5:1); all food and drinks may become impure by derivative impurities of the first degree. Babli Bava qamma 2b.. Food and drink and [clay]²²² vessels cannot become main categories of impurity to transmit impurity²²³. Gonorrhea. And here, we have stated: “The categories of work are 39.” Ploughing is a category. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, these are derivatives of ploughing²¹⁶.

footnotes: ²¹⁸ Mishnah Bava qamma ²¹⁹ Mishnah Kelim ²²⁰ Both in Šabbat ²²¹ This is not an exhaustive list and does not take into account that different implements may be subject to impurities in different degrees depending on the kind of original impurity in question. In general, metal vessels may become impure by touch from derivative impurities but not clay vessels (Mishnah Zavim ²²² Missing in the text but indicated by the construct state of the word כֶּלִי. ²²³ This statement requires that מַשְׁקִין be translated as “drinks”. The same word may also mean “fluids”, but human body fluids may be sources of original impurity and the water used for the ashes of the Red Cow may become the source of original impurity. ²¹⁶ The activities quoted here are all derivatives of ploughing (Babli 73b).

All categories of work they learned from the Tabernacle⁴. 35:1–3, one concludes that the prohibited actions are those needed for building the Tabernacle and the Service performed in it. The first series (11 categories) describes actions needed to prepare cereal offerings and the shew-bread. The second series (13 categories) catalogues the making of the priestly garments.. What kind of ploughing was in the Tabernacle? They ploughed to plant dyestuff²²⁴. How much does one have to plough to become liable? Rebbi Mattaniah said, enough to plant a leek. Rebbi Aḥa bar Rav said, enough to plant a wheat sprout. There²²⁵ 17:7)., we have stated: “Two green melon²²⁶ 1:2 Note 38. In modern Hebrew the word means “zucchini”. seeds make liable, two squash seeds, two Egyptian bean seeds.” It was stated, two Median wheat kernels. Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since wheat was so much appreciated they treated it like garden vegetables that are not eaten²²⁵ 17:7).. For everything which improves the soil one is liable²²⁷ because of ploughing: One who digs²²⁸, who cuts²²⁹, who inserts²³⁰, who deposits dung²³¹, who hoes, who fertilizes, who sweeps²³²ˋ Šabbat §55 notes, this disagrees with the Babli which restricts the category of ploughing to land which may be used for agriculture., who sprinkles²³²ˋ Šabbat §55 notes, this disagrees with the Babli which restricts the category of ploughing to land which may be used for agriculture., who splits blocks²³³, who clears forests, who sets fire to reed thickets²³⁴ or palm swamps, and following Rebbi Zeˋira a water canal prepares its banks for sowing²³⁵ˋed qaṭan 2b in the name of Rabba (Abba bar Naḥmani, contemporary of R. Zeˋira)., who removes stones²³⁶, who builds terraces²³⁷, who fills the rifts under olive trees, and who makes depressions for vines²³⁸, and for anything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing.

footnotes: ⁴ As noted earlier, since the Sabbath prohibition is repeated at the start of the rules of building the Tabernacle, Ex ²²⁴ To dye threads used to weave the gobelins of the Tabernacle and the priest’s garments. ²²⁵ Mishnah 9:7. The Mishnah details minimal amounts which create liability if carried from private to public domain. Even though in general food requires a minimal amount of the volume of a dried fig, seeds of garden vegetables create liability in smaller amounts. Palestinian dried figs are rather small (Mishnah Kelim ²²⁶ This is Maimonides’s determination, cf. Kilaim ²²⁵ Mishnah 9:7. The Mishnah details minimal amounts which create liability if carried from private to public domain. Even though in general food requires a minimal amount of the volume of a dried fig, seeds of garden vegetables create liability in smaller amounts. Palestinian dried figs are rather small (Mishnah Kelim ²²⁷ According to the Babli, 103a, the liability is triggered by the most minute amount of work, contradicting the opinions in the Yerushalmi earlier in this paragraph. ²²⁸ A cistern or other storage facility. ²²⁹ A ditch (for irrigation or drainage). ²³⁰ A spike or log in the ground, for making a fence. ²³¹ Leads his animal onto the property so they should fertilize it by their droppings. ²³² A dirt floor. As Or zarua ²³² A dirt floor. As Or zarua ²³³ A block of earth which must be broken up before it can be sown. ²³⁴ Also for clearing for agriculture. ²³⁵ Since the banks are watered automatically. Babli Mo ²³⁶ To turn barren land into an agriculturally usable area. ²³⁷ On hill slopes. ²³⁸ For watering the individual vines.

²³⁹ 1:3; its main subject are the rules of the holiday. However, since Mishnah Megillah 1:8 states that the only difference between the rules for Sabbath and for holidays is that preparation of food is permitted on holidays, the discussion is relevant also for the rules of the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday²⁴⁰ 12b) since making fire and cooking is permitted for preparing food on the holiday (Ex. 12:16) it is permitted for any purpose.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food²⁴¹. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday²⁴² 1:2. Since preparation of food is permitted on a holiday, it is permitted to slaughter for food. If a bird or a wild animal is slaughtered, its blood has to be covered by dust (Lev. 18:13). If no dust is available, the House of Shammai permit to take a prong and dig up some dust; the House of Hillel hold that in this case one should not slaughter but they agree that if one slaughtered one may take a prong and dig. Digging is a derivative of ploughing as noted in the preceding paragraph.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted²⁴³. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this²⁴⁴ is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter²⁴⁵. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23²⁴⁶? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same²⁴⁷ 1:2 is anonymous and therefore presumed to be R. Meïr’s. If it implies the position of R. Simeon then both must agree in this matter. The opponent of R. Simeon in this matter is Rebbi Jehudah, student of his father R. Ilai, who was a student of the Shammaite R. Eliezer. It is intrinsically unlikely that the House of Shammai should accept what later was formulated by R. Simeon.. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same²⁴⁸? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same²⁴⁹? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]²⁵⁰. “Everybody else questions whether R. Meïr agrees with R. Simeon while you assert this. Then you will have to question what in the sequel is stated as the rabbi’s opinion.” S. Liebermann refers to this sentence the remark of Or zaruaˋ Šabbat 55, that he suspects this Yerushalmi paragraph to contain a scribal error.? If one harvested for grasses²⁵¹ he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested²⁵². Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish²⁵³, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce²⁵⁴.

footnotes: ²³⁹ This paragraph also is in Beṣah ²⁴⁰ It is presumed that carcass meat, which is forbidden as human food, is not prepared as animal feed. For R. Joḥanan (Babli Beṣah ²⁴¹ He disputes that cooking be permitted for anything that is not food. ²⁴² This refers to Mishnah Beṣah ²⁴³ Since no spade is authorized, the work is not professional and, since the intent is not to prepare the soil for agriculture, the prohibition is rabbinical; the Houses of Shammai and Hillel do not disagree about the interpretation of a biblical commandment. ²⁴⁴ Both the Houses of Shammai and of Hillel do permit to use a spade; they must hold that the intent determines liability. ²⁴⁵ There is liability only if the prohibited action is the object of his intent, not a by-product. Cf. Chapter 2, Note 19. ²⁴⁶ Since in this interpretation both Houses agree that the digging does not create liability and the biblical commandment to cover the blood overrides the rabbinic “fence around the law”. ²⁴⁷ Mishnah Beṣah ²⁴⁸ Chapter 2, Note 19. Babli 31b. ²⁴⁹ Then we should hold that this is their (direct or indirect) teacher R. Aqiba’s position and it is difficult to fathom who would disagree; but we see that this opinion is not generally accepted in tannaitic sources. ²⁵⁰ The words in brackets are added from the text in Beṣah ²⁵¹ He was weeding and using the uprooted weeds as fodder. This is forbidden on a holiday as it is forbidden on the Sabbath, but since there is a question of multiple liabilities the reference is to the Sabbath. ²⁵² In the Babli, these rabbis are identified with R. Jehudah. ²⁵³ A pickled herring which may be eaten cold on the Sabbath. Babli 145a. ²⁵⁴ This is all one liability; since he compressed the fish he produced fish sauce and is liable. The Babli holds that R. Simeon agrees that in this case there is liability; technically this is called פְּסִיק רֵישָׁא “cut off the head”. The image is that of a murderer who claims that he never intended to kill his victim, only to cut off his head. Since death is an automatic consequence of cutting off the head, he is guilty of murder. Similarly in the Babli, R. Simeon agrees that an automatic consequence of an intended action is included in the intended action; the Yerushalmi disagrees (and, therefore, does not declare that R. Simeon defines practice.)

For any activity which quickens a fruit to ripen one is liable because of sowing. One who plants, who sinks²⁵⁵, who grafts, who prunes, who trains²⁵⁶, who removes dead branches, who dirties²⁵⁷ˋit 2:4)., who removes leaves, who dusts²⁵⁸, who smokes²⁵⁹, who removes worms, who sprinkles with ashes²⁵⁸, who oils, who waters, who drills holes²⁶⁰, who makes houses²⁶¹, and for anything which quickens a fruit to ripen one is liable because of sowing.

footnotes: ²⁵⁵ He takes a branch of a vine, bends it down into a ditch, covers the ditch with earth, and lets it come out again. Then the branch will grow roots in the earth and one has a new vine. ²⁵⁶ He binds the branches to an espalier. ²⁵⁷ In modern terms, applying pesticide (Mishnah Ševi ²⁵⁸ This also is a way to combat insect infestations. ²⁵⁹ Either to smoke out worms and insects or to protect against cold spells. ²⁵⁸ This also is a way to combat insect infestations. ²⁶⁰ Punctures unripe sycamore figs to let them ripen for human consumption. ²⁶¹ No convincing explanation is available for this expression.

²⁶² 8:1 (Notes 32–36, כ) and Sanhedrin 7:5 (Note 125, נ).[Rebbi]²⁶³ Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana²⁶⁴: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts²⁶⁵ˋed qaṭan 2b, this refers to the case where he prunes with the intent of using the cut branches as wood; then he is simultaneously harvesting and sowing., according to Rebbi Zeˋira only on one count. Did not Rebbi Zeˋira say the pruner is like the planter, did he say perhaps the planter is like the pruner²⁶⁶. 25:3.? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency²⁶⁷. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Zeˋira he is guilty on two counts.

footnotes: ²⁶² This paragraph is also on Kilaim ²⁶³ Added from the parallel sources. ²⁶⁴ Since Ḥiyya bar Ashi was among the older students of Rav, Cahana mentioned here must be an older Sage (Cahana I) who already was a recognized authority when Rav returned from Galilee to Babylonia. ²⁶⁵ In the interpretation of the Babli, 73b, and Mo ²⁶⁶ Pruning is a subcategory of sowing concerning the Sabbath just as planting is, but planting is not like pruning for the Sabbatical year since planting belongs to sowing and pruning was mentioned separately in the verse, Lev ²⁶⁷ Following the argument made for the Sabbath, it would not have been necessary to have pruning singled out in the laws of the Sabbatical. Since it is obvious that for the Sabbatical, pruning is a separate offense, pruning can be a subcategory of sowing for the Sabbath only as a stringency, not a leniency.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated¹¹⁰ is in the Babli 73b, Tosephta 9:17.: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.¹¹¹” One who cuts sponge²⁶⁵ˋed qaṭan 2b, this refers to the case where he prunes with the intent of using the cut branches as wood; then he is simultaneously harvesting and sowing., papyrus, or corals²⁶⁶. 25:3. is liable for harvesting and planting²⁶⁷. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket²⁶⁸, eruca sativa., endives²⁶⁹, sesame²⁷⁰, reading כשומין., mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing²⁷¹. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing²⁷². Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it²⁷³. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they²⁷⁴ do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes²⁷⁵ it is liable for hitting with a hammer⁷. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting²⁷⁶.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Quoted again later in the discussion of Mishnah 2, after Note 267. The Babylonian version of this baraita ¹¹¹ These are six actions classified under the same category. “Tearing out” refers among other things to tearing out hairs. ²⁶⁵ In the interpretation of the Babli, 73b, and Mo ²⁶⁶ Pruning is a subcategory of sowing concerning the Sabbath just as planting is, but planting is not like pruning for the Sabbatical year since planting belongs to sowing and pruning was mentioned separately in the verse, Lev ²⁶⁷ Following the argument made for the Sabbath, it would not have been necessary to have pruning singled out in the laws of the Sabbatical. Since it is obvious that for the Sabbatical, pruning is a separate offense, pruning can be a subcategory of sowing for the Sabbath only as a stringency, not a leniency. ²⁶⁸ Accadic gergirū ²⁶⁹ Greek τρώξιμος, -ον, “edible”; τά τρώξιμα “vegetables eaten raw”, in rabbinic sources traditionally used for endives. ²⁷⁰ With the quote in Arukh ²⁷¹ For garden vegetables, “sowing” is the appropriate word. The reason is the same as in the preceding case, Note 267. ²⁷² If something grows in a flowerpot with a hole in the bottom through which the soil absorbs moisture, removing the pot from the soil amounts to harvesting. Putting it down again, even on an empty flowerpot with a hole in the bottom, enables moisture to be absorbed again and amounts to sowing. ²⁷³ Sycamores grow again when cut down. Therefore cutting on the Sabbath is both harvesting and planting. The third offense is not connected with the cutting; Note 275. ²⁷⁴ The two statements in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish are consistent with one another. ²⁷⁵ This turns a tree into building material. ⁷ A name for the formal end of any production process. ²⁷⁶ The action which qualifies as harvesting is removing the fish from the water. This applies also to fish already caught but kept in water.

“He who binds into sheaves.” Rebbi Samuel bar Sosartai asked, what are the derivatives of binding into sheaves? Rebbi Yose: I heard the reason following Rebbi Simeon²⁷⁷ from Rebbi Aḥa, but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? One who pounds²⁷⁸ rice²⁷⁹, barley, groats²⁸⁰, -ae., is liable because of threshing. He who spreads out ṣeli figs²⁸¹ 7:4 Note 86., raisins, ²⁸²מסוסלה, bucellata²⁸³ 1:6 Note 182. Italian buccella “bread crust”., is liable because of binding into sheaves. For anything involving food one is liable because of binding into sheaves, involving shells because of threshing²⁸⁴.

footnotes: ²⁷⁷ R. Simeon ben Laqish who earlier was reported to have established derivatives for all categories mentioned in the Mishnah. ²⁷⁸ To separate the grain from the shell. ²⁷⁹ Greel ὄρυζα, ἡ. ²⁸⁰ Latin alica ²⁸¹ He is spreading out fruit or food to dry. The translation of צלין as “figs for drying” is tentative, cf. Peah ²⁸² This word is totally unexplained. Brüll in his review of Levy’s Dictionary proposes to read מטוטלה “bunch (of berries)”, but the word should denote a definite kind of fruit (or meat?) put out to dry in the sun. ²⁸³ A kind of bread consisting only of crust; cf. Ḥallah ²⁸⁴ For consistency, probably one should read the sentence about threshing after the one about binding into sheaves.

A woman if she mixes wheat²⁸⁵, because she is sifting; if she breaks the tips²⁸⁶, because she is threshing; if she breaks the sides²⁸⁷, because she is selecting; if she hits, because she is grinding; if she sifts, because she is winnowing; if she completes her work, because she is hitting with a hammer²⁸⁸.

footnotes: ²⁸⁵ If she mixes different qualities of wheat grain and then shakes the mixture to distribute the different kinds evenly, the bran will fall off by the shaking. For each kind of work one investigates the maximum number of liabilities created. ²⁸⁶ Of whole grains. The outer shells will fall off; this is threshing. ²⁸⁷ She takes the grain out of the peel. ²⁸⁸ In contrast to the Babli, the Yerushalmi admits a liability for “hitting with a hammer” for completing professional work even for the preparation of food.

This linen weaver with a mallet²⁸⁹ because of threshing; with a roller because of grinding; with a winnowing shovel²⁹⁰ because of winnowing; with a spoon because of selecting; if he splits because of using a hatchet; if he tears out²⁹¹ because of cutting; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

footnotes: ²⁸⁹ Greek κόπανον, τό “pestle”. ²⁹⁰ Reading מערוכה for מערובה “mixer”. ²⁹¹ Cutting linen thread, not plucking flax plants.

One who is grinding garlic, if he breaks the tips, because he is threshing; if he takes the outer leaves, because he is selecting; if he pounds in a mortar, because he is grinding; if it produces liquid, because of making dough; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

This sausage maker²⁹² 4:4. The translation follows Meïri in his Commentary to Babli Beṣah 32a, accepted by S. Liebermann., if he selects²⁹³ shavings for casings, because of selecting; if he hacks with a coarse file, because of threshing, if he pounds in a mortar, because he is grinding; if it produces liquid, because of making dough; if he fills a hollow²⁹⁴, -i, “cavity”., because of building; if he cuts off bast, because of cutting; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

footnotes: ²⁹² The word appears only here and in Beṣah ²⁹³ Reading מבחר for מכחד. ²⁹⁴ Latin antrum

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed fish²⁵³, if for their body he is not liable, but to produce fish sauce he is liable. Rav²⁹⁵ said, if one compressed pickles²⁹⁶, if for their body it is permitted, for their fluid it is forbidden²⁹⁷. Preserves²⁹⁸ both for their body or their fluid is forbidden²⁹⁹. Samuel said, both for pickles and for preserves, both for their body or their fluid it is forbidden. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, the statement of Rav disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Mana asked him, why? Because one said forbidden and permitted but the other said liable and not liable³⁰⁰.

footnotes: ²⁵³ A pickled herring which may be eaten cold on the Sabbath. Babli 145a. ²⁹⁵ As the sequel shows, one has to read רב for רבא. ²⁹⁶ Vegetables or fruits preserved in vinegar without cooking. ²⁹⁷ The prohibition is rabbinical only since the fluid absorbed by the pickle it from the outside. Pressing an orange on the Sabbath is a biblical infraction creating liability but squeezing a pickle is not. ²⁹⁸ Preserved by cooking for an extended time. ²⁹⁹ In the Babli 145a: “permitted”. ³⁰⁰ R. Joḥanan notes that compressing fish for their body is rabbinically prohibited but creates no biblical liability while for its fluid it would be a biblical infraction, but Rav states that compressing pickles for their body is permitted, for their fluid does not create biblical liability.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, if one crushed an onion, if it was to give taste it is forbidden, if to reduce its sharpness it is permitted³⁰¹. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: One may hide a radish in salt on condition not to leave it there³⁰². Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: [If there came]³⁰³ 73b. his clothes from the tailor he may wear them; if they tore³⁰⁴ 8:10 (Zuckermandel 11:11). He should not publicly be seen fixing his garments. they tore. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: If his garments were entangled with thorns he straightens them out in a guarded place on condition that he not tear³⁰⁴ 8:10 (Zuckermandel 11:11). He should not publicly be seen fixing his garments.. Rebbi Zeˋira said in the name of Rav Huna: If (he took) mortar [fell]³⁰⁵ on his garments he may rub it off with one hand, on condition that he not grind down. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: mint, one is permitted, three is forbidden, two is questionable³⁰⁶. One who bathes, Rav Huna and Rav Jehudah. One said, so it is permitted and so it is forbidden³⁰⁷. But the other one said, so and so it is forbidden. Rebbi Abba bar Zamina went bathing with Rebbi Zeˋira; he did not let him do either one or the other.

footnotes: ³⁰¹ In the first case he creates on the Sabbath a kind of spice that did not exist before; this is rabbinically forbidden. In the second case where he takes already existing food and improves it, it is a permissible way. ³⁰² It cannot stay until after the Sabbath since one may not prepare from the Sabbath for a weekday. Cf. Babli 108b. ³⁰³ The addition is from the quote of the sentence in Meïri ad ³⁰⁴ Tosephta Eruvin ³⁰⁴ Tosephta Eruvin ³⁰⁵ Reading נפל for נטל. ³⁰⁶ In the interpretation of S. Liebermann, crushing one mint plant is permitted, three already is professional work and forbidden. It probably does not mean that 1, 3, 2 people are involved in the work (cf. Babli 113a). ³⁰⁷ It is not spelled out what kind of washing is permitted and what is forbidden on the Sabbath since R. Zeˋira, whom we follow, only permits dunking oneself in the water but nothing else.

If water fell on his garments. Rav Huna and Rav Jeremiah. One said, to shake it off is permitted, to rub it off is forbidden; but the other one switches³⁰⁸.

footnotes: ³⁰⁸ The problem is that it may wash the garment; cf. Babli 147a line 1 ff.

Rebbi Abba (bar)³⁰⁹ Ḥiyya bar Ashi, one who spits absorbs it in his garment and does not worry³¹⁰. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi disagreed. One said, one spits and crushes; the other said, one does not spit and crush. Where do they differ? If it is not on a mosaic floor³¹¹. But if there is a mosaic floor he spits and crushes. If he spat and the wind carried it away he is liable because of winnowing; and for anything which is diminished by the wind³¹² 60a, Bava batra 26a. one is liable because of winnowing.

footnotes: ³⁰⁹ Read: R. Abba in the name of R. Ḥiyya bar Ashi, as in the next sentence. ³¹⁰ He puts his shoe on the spittle and crushes it. This is a problem on a dirt floor. Babli 121b. ³¹¹ Greek ψῆφος, ἡ, “pebble, mosaic stone”, meaning a stone floor. ³¹² Since he wanted to spit, it is intentional. If then the wind carries it farther than 4 cubits in the public domain, he is liable. Similarly in other cases where he intentionally initiated the action. Babli Bava qamma

“And who selects.” Rebbi Yudan said, one picks out pebbles the entire day and does not incur liability, and one takes the volume of a dried fig and immediately incurs liability. How is this? If he was sitting on top of a heap of grain and picks out pebbles the entire day, he does not incur liability³¹³; if he took in his hand the volume of a dried fig and picked out he is liable.

footnotes: ³¹³ Since by sitting on top he cannot reach the lower parts of the heap, there will remain pebbles in the grain; the grain will not qualify as pebble-free and command a higher price on the market. Since in the Mishnah “selecting” was mentioned in preparation to milling, and grain with pebbles cannot be milled, his action does not qualify as “selecting” in the sense of the Mishnah. But taking a small quantity in his hand allows him to clear out all stones; this is “selecting” and biblically forbidden on the Sabbath. Babli 74a.

³¹⁴ 1:10 (י) and refer to Mishnah Beṣah 1:9: “The House of Shammai say, he who selects legumes on a holiday selects the food and eats. But the House of Hillel say, he selects normally, on his chest, or from a basket, or from a pot, but not on a table, nor with a sieve. Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” The House of Shammai permit only to pick out the edible parts and eat them directly. The House of Hillel hold that separating the beans from the chaff belongs to the activities permitted as preparation of food and in principle permit any kind of selection; they only require that it should not be done in a weekday fashion. They certainly will agree that the restrictions are purely rabbinical. Rebbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If he did it on the Sabbath would he not be liable according to the House of Hillel? And here he is liable. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah said it correctly. It is a problem only for the House of Shammai. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted on the holiday, nothing of the category of selecting was permitted on the Sabbath³¹⁵.

footnotes: ³¹⁴ This and the following paragraphs are from Beṣah ³¹⁵ The objection of R. Yose is pointless. There is no problem for the House of Hillel since they hold that selecting as a category is permitted on the holiday but forbidden on the Sabbath. But we do not know whether the House of Shammai hold the same and are rabbinically restrictive on the holiday more than the House of Hillel or whether they hold that selecting does not belong to the preparation of food but to preliminaries to preparation which are not exempted on the holiday and for which, therefore, the rules are identical on Sabbath and holiday. Since in his days, in the middle of the Fourth Century, the House of Shammai had disappeared for 250 years, no answer can be given.

³¹⁶ If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable³¹⁷. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table³¹⁸. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: explain it if guests were eating what was served. But was it not stated: On condition that he did not select all of its kind? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, because one who selects (normally)³¹⁹ on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at (one) [another]³²⁰. Liability on the Sabbath can always be avoided by doing things in a decidedly unprofessional way; the mention of doing things “normally” is appropriate here. place is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings³²¹, even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people³²²? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines³²³ and beans³²⁴. He told them, be careful to eat (the wood-chips)(the sticks) [the artichokes]³²⁵, the second word that of the Leiden text in Beṣah, the probably correct choice is the third, from the Genizah text, Greek κινάρα. If this reading is accepted, following S. Liebermann, then the statement is that on a holiday it is permitted to select anything for immediate consumption, even if there are no remainders, and eat a different dessert at the end. at the end.

footnotes: ³¹⁶ Here starts a new Genizah fragment (G) edited by L. Ginzberg, p. 84.The paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 74a/b. ³¹⁷ It is somewhat difficult to understand Ḥizqiah’s position. What is biblically forbidden on the Sabbath is removing chaff from food, not food from chaff (except, as mentioned later in this paragraph, if the entire batch was cleaned, when there is no difference what was taken from where.) Biblically Ḥizqiah would have to forbid to remove the food one does not want to eat from the food one wants to eat; the other way would only be rabbinically forbidden. ³¹⁸ For immediate consumption. There is no difference whether one puts food in his own mouth or in others’. ³¹⁹ To be deleted with the other two sources. ³²⁰ The text in brackets (following the other two sources) is the correct one. The “other place” is the Sabbath; the origin of this paragraph also is in Beṣah ³²¹ String figs from a heap of string figs. ³²² Then it would be forbidden on the Sabbath to call people to read the Torah unless they had been selected beforehand. This we never heard. ³²³ Greek θέρμος, ὁ. ³²⁴ Greek φάσηλος, ὁ. ³²⁵ The first alternative is the conjectured meaning of the word in the Leiden text in Šabbat

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40³²⁶. והרודה. While preparing food is biblically permitted on a holiday as shown later in the paragraph, there is a dispute between the anonymous majority and R. Jehudah whether this includes preparations which could have been made the day before without impairing the quality of the food, which the majority prohibits and R. Jehudah and Rabban Gamliel permit. It is stated here that for the majority the prohibition is biblical, at least concerning preparations for baking.. But did we not state³²⁷ 1:9. This is the version of the Mishnah always quoted in Halakhot.: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” And (did we not state) [was it not stated]³²⁸, in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills³¹⁴ 1:10 (י) and refer to Mishnah Beṣah 1:9: “The House of Shammai say, he who selects legumes on a holiday selects the food and eats. But the House of Hillel say, he selects normally, on his chest, or from a basket, or from a pot, but not on a table, nor with a sieve. Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” The House of Shammai permit only to pick out the edible parts and eat them directly. The House of Hillel hold that separating the beans from the chaff belongs to the activities permitted as preparation of food and in principle permit any kind of selection; they only require that it should not be done in a weekday fashion. They certainly will agree that the restrictions are purely rabbinical.? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose (in the name of Rebbi Ila) [ben Rebbi Abun]³²⁸: Grinding as a category was not permitted³²⁹. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi (Yose) [Aḥa]³²⁸ in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread³³⁰. 12:16–17. The text omitted by the quote “up to” permits preparation of food on a holiday, as quoted later in the paragraph.. (It was stated.)³³¹ Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread³³² 3a s.v. גזרה (at the end): vv. 16,17 form a unit: what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Any preparation of mazzah which requires guarding against possible leavening is permitted on the holiday, anything preceding this, i. e., mixing flour with water to make dough, is forbidden.. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement³³³: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

footnotes: ³²⁶ The 39 lashes which are the standard punishment for breaking biblical prohibitions for which no other biblical punishment is specified. The Babli disagrees and declares these activities only rabbinically prohibited on a holiday, cf. Tosaphot 95a, s. v ³²⁷ Mishnah Beṣah ³²⁸ The text in parentheses from the Leiden ms. is inferior to that of the other two sources in brackets. ³¹⁴ This and the following paragraphs are from Beṣah ³²⁸ The text in parentheses from the Leiden ms. is inferior to that of the other two sources in brackets. ³²⁹ Rabban Gamliel will agree that milling flour is biblically forbidden on a holiday; he will hold that grinding pepper in a peppermill is not professionally grinding and not something which may be done the day before without impairing the quality of the spice. ³²⁸ The text in parentheses from the Leiden ms. is inferior to that of the other two sources in brackets. ³³⁰ Ex ³³¹ This has to be deleted with the other two sources. ³³² There is nothing missing between the two quotes, so that the note “up to” seems to be superfluous. The meaning is explained in Tosaphot Beṣah ³³³ Against the Mishnah where the House of Hillel permit selecting. G ends here.

³³⁵, the original author is Rav, not Samuel. This may be a lectio facilior since Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi was a companion of Rav; but if Rav Cahana is Cahana, the stepson of Rav, it would represent a Babylonian tradition. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Zeˋira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina³³⁶ on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted³³⁷. The category of selecting was permitted³²⁷ 1:9. This is the version of the Mishnah always quoted in Halakhot.: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”. Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging³³⁸ 20:1. According to the anonymous majority on a holiday one may not put a filter on top of a barrel because this is an activity not covered by the general permission to prepare food, but if the filter already was in place one may filter wine on a holiday.”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina ben Yaqe said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve³³⁹ 29b.. If you say it is because of sifting, it³⁴⁰ should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, (in truth) [also]³⁴¹ preparations for making food they permitted³⁴² 1:7.. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

footnotes: ³³⁵ This text also appears in Chapter 20 (17c line 35, noted 20; the Genizah text of Chapter 20 edited by J. N. Epstein is noted E). The parallel in the Babli is in 138a where the argument of R. Zeˋira is quoted in his name but the introductory statement is in the name of Rav Cahana. In Beṣah ³³⁶ The coarser pieces. ³³⁷ On a holiday, as shown later from Mishnaiot.Here starts a new Genizah leaf (Ginzberg, p. 85). ³²⁷ Mishnah Beṣah ³³⁸ Mishnah Šabbat ³³⁹ This sentence, while it is at this place in all sources, does not belong here but at the very end of the paragraph where it answers to a question raised there. If flour had been sifted before but the housewife wants to sift it again on the holiday before using if for baking, she may turn the sieve upside down and use it with the sieve instead of being concave downwards being convex upwards. This is unprofessional and therefore not biblically forbidden even according to the opinion stated in the preceding paragraph that all preparations preceding making dough are forbidden on the holiday. Cf. Babli Beṣah ³⁴⁰ Filtering. ³⁴¹ The text in parentheses is from the Leiden ms.; that of the other sources is in brackets. Both are possible. ³⁴² Tosephta Megillah

“And who grinds.” He who pulverizes salt, clay shards, peppers, is liable because of grinding. He who cuts into little pieces chalk, gypsum³⁴³, chaff, sand, dirt, is liable because of sifting. He who kneads chalk, gypsum, dust, eye-salve³⁴⁴, plaster³⁴⁵, drugs, is liable because of making dough. One who makes dough, or kneads dough, or forms dough, all are because of making dough. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked, there³⁴⁶ 5:2. The shew bread has to be unleavened. Violating this rule at any stage of the preparation of the bread is a separate biblical violation for each stage. you say, “and he is liable for making its dough, and for its forming, and for its baking,” and here you are saying so? But there he has to divide for he is liable for each single one, but here³⁴⁷ he is liable only once. You see that baking is a derivative of cooking, and you are saying so? But it was stated here since we are stating the order of the dough³⁴⁸.

footnotes: ³⁴³ Greek γύψος, ἡ. ³⁴⁴ Greek κολλύριον, τό. ³⁴⁵ Greek μάλαγμα, -ατος, τό. ³⁴⁶ Mishnah Menaḥot ³⁴⁷ For the rules of the Sabbath, kneading the dough and forming it into the required shape count only as one liability. ³⁴⁸ In Mishnah 2, one would have expected “cooking” to be listed as the name of the category; for it is the more widely applicable notion, and baking as derivative. But since the Mishnah is organized in describing the making of the shew-bread (Note 4) the category of cooking is labelled “baking”. Babli 74b.

He who burns potter’s³⁵⁰ clay, softens glass³⁵¹, melts pitch, melts ³⁵²מוסרין. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: One who melts down lead is liable because of cooking³⁵³ 6b.. One who roasts, or who fries, who preserves by cooking, or by smoking, all these because of cooking. If somebody cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, what³⁵⁴? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Ḥizqiah; for Ḥizqiah it was a problem: what if the Passover sacrifice was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias³⁵⁵? Two Amoraim, one said, it is forbidden; the other said, it is permitted. He who said, it is forbidden, do not eat from it raw, nor cooked in water³⁵⁶. 12:9. The first part of the verse invalidates the sacrifice heated by hot water.. But he who said, it is permitted, but only roasted in fire, its head with its feet and its innards³⁵⁷.

footnotes: ³⁵⁰ Reading קדר “potter” for unexplained קרד. ³⁵¹ Following G, reading Greek βῶλος, ἡ, “lump, clod”. ³⁵² This word is unexplained. In other contexts, מוסר is “one who delivers; informant”. Cf. Greek μίσυ, -υος and -εως, τό, “copper ore from Cyprus” (E. G.). ³⁵³ Babli 106a, Yebamot ³⁵⁴ Cooking in hot springs may be forbidden rabbinically; it cannot cause liability. Babli 40b. ³⁵⁵ The question is quite difficult since the Passover must be slaughtered in the Temple and roasted and eaten nearby. The question is really if the Passover was treated by what biblically is not cooking before being roasted, whether this invalidates the sacrifice. ³⁵⁶ Ex ³⁵⁷ The second part of the verse validates it if the formal preparation was roasting over an open fire.

All these measures³⁵⁸, if for food, in the volume of a dried fig, if for an animal, the mouthful of a kid goat, if to cook, to cook a quick egg³⁵⁹, [ ]³⁶⁰ zaruaˋ Šabbat §62: אִם לָתַבֵּל כְּדֵי לָתַבֵּל כֵּיצָה קַלָּה “if to spice, enough to spice a quick egg”., if to weave, the length of a double siṭ³⁶¹, but in Mishnah 13:4 as one siṭ (a hand-breadth, the width of four thumbs). The text here cannot be changed since “double” is clearly visible in G and is quoted in Or zaruaˋ., if to spin, the width of a double siṭ.

footnotes: ³⁵⁸ The general principle underlying the minimal amounts which create liability as explained in the later Mishnaiot of this Chapter and the following Chapters. ³⁵⁹ A chicken egg. ³⁶⁰ In the Leiden ms. there is no lacuna here, but in G one reads … לתבל ביצ ..… This supports the reading in Or ³⁶¹ Both Mishnah 7:2 and 13:1 state that liability is created if one weaves two threads. The minimal length of a thread is defined here as a double siṭ

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification,³⁶¹, but in Mishnah 13:4 as one siṭ (a hand-breadth, the width of four thumbs). The text here cannot be changed since “double” is clearly visible in G and is quoted in Or zaruaˋ. what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed³⁶²., Latin calamus,- i, m., in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter³⁶³. There, we have stated³⁶⁴ 3:3. Slaughter of a wooly animal cannot be made through thick wool since the fleece might deflect or damage the knife, which would make the slaughter invalid and the animal into carcass meat. Therefore it is necessary to clear some area for the slaughter. It is biblically forbidden to shear a firstling (Deut. 15:19). The Mishnah states that tearing out hairs from the animal’s fleece is not shearing.: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect³⁶⁵. 15:20)..” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable³⁶⁶. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable³⁶⁷; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed³⁶⁸. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].³⁶⁹” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they³⁷⁰ do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing³⁷¹ 25a.. But here³⁷² he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

footnotes: ³⁶¹ Both Mishnah 7:2 and 13:1 state that liability is created if one weaves two threads. The minimal length of a thread is defined here as a double siṭ ³⁶² Greek κάλαμος, -ου, m ³⁶³ Writing on the Sabbath creates liability if it may make sense, which means that a word may be formed, or at least two letters. But in correcting, changing a single letter may change the meaning of a word. Therefore if the specific intent was for correcting, the general rule (Mishnah 3) is superseded by a more restrictive one. Similarly here, specific intent in shearing may reduce the amount which creates liability; the absence of specific intent cannot reduce it. ³⁶⁴ Mishnah Bekhorot ³⁶⁵ Which would make the firstling secular property of the Cohen, (Deut ³⁶⁶ As the Sabbath is concerned, this is unprofessional and therefore does not create liability while still being forbidden. ³⁶⁷ As illegitimate use of dedicated property. ³⁶⁸ The previously recorded disagreement with R. Joḥanan has to be reconciled with the generally accepted Tosephta which follows. ³⁶⁹ Tosephta 9:20. ³⁷⁰ The two opinions of R. Simeon ben Laqish, that tearing out hairs from a four-legged animal does not create liability but tearing out feathers from a bird does. ³⁷¹ Babli Bekhorot ³⁷² In the case of the four-legged animal.

“Who bleaches it.” He who impregnates wood for vessels and ropes for a windlass³⁷³. This woman who painted her face red³⁷⁴ and painted her spindle red³⁷⁵ 68 (but he reads, “she paints her coat red”.. This tailor who took a thread into his mouth³⁷⁶. Rav Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Asbestos³⁷⁷ “asbestos”. There is bleaching and dying for mineral material. is liable because of bleaching.

footnotes: ³⁷³ For נחבלין אליקה in G one reads חבלין אל יקה. The translation, which is tentative, is based on Liebermann’s emendation to read וחבלין לאליקה reading the last word as Greek ἕλικα, accusative of ἕλιξ (identified by Jastrow). ³⁷⁴ In the Babli 95a this is characterized as R. Eliezer’s opinion and is not practice since it is only temporary painting. ³⁷⁵ As advertisement that she was available for prostitution. In all these cases, the statement that she is liable for painting is missing. The full text is quoted by some Medieval authors, e. g. Roqeaḥ Šabbat ³⁷⁶ The commentaries explain that he does this to bleach the thread. ³⁷⁷ Greek ἀμίαντος, -ον, “pure” (adj.); ὁ ἀμίαντος λίθος, Latin amiantus

“Who cards it.” He who cards date palm fiber, papyrus, is liable because of carding³⁷⁸ in Arabic..

footnotes: ³⁷⁸ Even though these are not textiles. Date palm fiber is lifa

“Who dyes it.” What kind of dying was in the Tabernacle? They were clobbering an animal for red skins of rams³⁷⁹. 25:5, 26:14.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he is liable who causes a wound which results in echymosis³⁸⁰. He who colors his lips red is liable³⁷⁴. He who causes bleeding, because of taking away life force at that place³⁸¹. 17:11. This does not refer to slaughter which is mentioned separately in Mishnah 3, but to a non-lethal wound. Babli 75a/b.. He who makes a shape, the first one is liable because of writing and the second one because of dying³⁸². If he left out a limb and another came and finished it, he is liable because of hitting with a hammer⁷. Wringing and washing are the same category of work. It was stated: Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the dyers in Jerusalem made wringing a separate category of work. In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, there are 40 categories of work³⁸³. Should we state this? We come to state only items to which everybody agrees.

footnotes: ³⁷⁹ Ex ³⁸⁰ If the blue spot stays blue more than 24 hours. ³⁷⁴ In the Babli 95a this is characterized as R. Eliezer’s opinion and is not practice since it is only temporary painting. ³⁸¹ Lev ³⁸² Assuming that the first person draws an outline and the second fills it with color. The Babli 75b notes that if the object is decoration of the vessel, he also is liable because of “hitting with a hammer”. ⁷ A name for the formal end of any production process. ³⁸³ Since it is not listed separately in the Mishnah.

One who makes ropes. The one who twines them is liable because of spinning³⁸⁴. One who makes basket work of reeds³⁸⁵, sieves, bast mats, is liable because of weaving. A woman when she prepares the loom, because of preparing. When she fastens the web,³⁸⁶ because of tying threads. When she erects [the loom], because of building. When she hits³⁸⁷, because of weaving. When she cuts the threads, because of cutting. When she finishes her work, because of hitting with a hammer. One who makes boxes, when he starts, because of preparing. When he tailors³⁸⁸, because of sewing. When he bends, because of building. When he cuts, because of cutting. When he finishes his work, because of hitting with a hammer. One who makes bed-sheets³⁸⁹ˋ Šabbat 64 reads an unexplained ערסמו. G treats מלין and ערסװן as two different objects and has for both of them the full list of operations. J. Sussman reads in G not מלין (Ginzberg’s reading, unidentified as an object) but סַלִּין “baskets”., lengthwise because of preparing, crosswise because of weaving. Grating, because of tying threads. When he cuts, because of cutting. When he finishes his work, because of hitting with a hammer. There are two warp threads per peg and two pegs for each warp thread³⁹⁰.

footnotes: ³⁸⁴ The Babli 95a rules that braiding women’s hair is building. ³⁸⁵ The translation follows Levy; it is tentative. ³⁸⁶ The word in the text is unexplained. The translation follows R. Ḥananel who in his Commentary to 75a reads קירומה, which is interpreted as Greek καίρωμα, -ατος, τό. This is derived from καῖρος, ὁ, “row of thrums in the loom, to which the threads of the warp are attached” and the corresponding verb καιρόω “make fast these threads”; καίρωμα therefoe means “web so fastened”. ³⁸⁷ She pushes down the threads of the woof; this is the essence of weaving. ³⁸⁸ This is the only occurrence of חייט used as a verb. G reads “acting as cutter”, cf. شرط “to cut, to tear”. ³⁸⁹ A conjectured meaning of מלין ערסװן “contents of beds”. Or zarua ³⁹⁰ The pegs are on top and bottom of the loom, holding the threads of the warp.

“He who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties.” ³⁹⁴ What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes³⁹⁵. 35:18. Babli 74b.. But was this not temporarily³⁹⁶? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word³⁹⁷ 55b., was it like temporarily? Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi Abun]³⁹⁸ zaruaˋ Šabbat 67. said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were (temporary) [permanent]³⁹⁹. Rebbi Phineas said, they learned it from the gobelin sewers. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. If it broke again, it was impossible to make many knots but he would untie the first one⁴⁰⁰. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads⁴⁰¹. And where was this said? As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the gobelins. What is the reason? The length of one gobelin⁴⁰². 26:2. To form a single unit, a gobelin could not have a broken thread even temporarily., that it should be an entity⁴⁰³. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of (Rav) [Rebbi]⁴⁰⁴ Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection⁴⁰⁵.

footnotes: ³⁹⁴ This paragraph and the next are also in Chapter 15, on Mishnah 15:1 (15), ³⁹⁵ Needed to tie the gobelins which formed the lowest part of the roof to the posts. Mentioned Ex ³⁹⁶ Tying a knot or untying is a Sabbath violation if the knot is intended to be permanent. Since the ropes had to be untied when the Tabernacle was transported, tying and untying could not be Sabbath violations. ³⁹⁷ By Divine order. Since tying and untying was not a decision humans could make; it could as well be considered permanent. In 15 this is a declarative sentence; it is the equivalent of being permanent. Babli Eruvin ³⁹⁸ From G and 15, confirmed by Or ³⁹⁹ The text in (parentheses) is that of the corrector of the Leiden ms. and the scribe in 15, the one in [brackets] is of the original scribe here, the corrector in 15, and G. Since the Tabernacle was finally fixed at Shilo, there the ties were permanent. The other argument notes that while the times of disassembly of the Tabernacle were not predictable, the fact of future disassembly was a certainty; these ties were not permanent. ⁴⁰⁰ Therefore both tying and untying happened during the construction of the Tabernacle and are correctly mentioned in the list of Sabbath prohibitions. ⁴⁰¹ The previous argument is not convincing. An expert in invisible mending can connect the threads without a knot being noticeable. ⁴⁰² Ex ⁴⁰³ For reasons of chronology, the [reading] of G is to be preferred over that of the (Leiden ms.) here and in Chapter 15. ⁴⁰⁴ For the purposes of the construction of the Sanctuary everything had to be perfect; no broken threads to be repaired. The only possible explanation remains the first one. ⁴⁰⁵ A scribal error.

Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a basket of palm leaves for dates or a plate⁴⁰⁷ of palm leaves one may tear and open, only one may not tie⁴⁰⁸.

footnotes: ⁴⁰⁷ Greek πάτελλα, ἡ. ⁴⁰⁸ Chapter 6, Note 41. Here ends the parallel in Chapter 15.

Is this not untying? It is like one who breaks an amphora to eat dried figs⁴⁰⁹. The handles of a double sack⁴¹⁰ one may tie and untie. It is as if one opened or locked on the Sabbath.

footnotes: ⁴⁰⁹ It is permitted in Mishnah 22:3 to break a sealed amphora to reach the food contained in it, on condition that one not intend to make a vessel out of the shards. ⁴¹⁰ Greek δισάκκιον, τό.

⁴¹¹ 9:7 (Notes 162–167,כ); its topic is kilaim, the prohibition to wear linen and wool together, in particular the problem how many stitches it needs to connect linen and woolen cloth to constitute a violation of the prohibition. Only at the end is a connection made with the laws of the Sabbath. Rebbi Ḥanina said, not until it comes down an entire side⁴¹² only if a full seam was sown. This contradicts the Mishnah quoted next.. Rebbi Yannai said, say to Rebbi Ḥanina, get out and read! Did we not state⁴¹³ 9:10., “if the two ends appear on the same side”? That means, only if it goes up and down and up. And did we not state, “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three needle stitches”? That means that [the thread] goes down, and up, and down. But so and so⁴¹⁴. A thread drawn through by means of a needle, even if it has a knot on each side, is no connection for cloth. The thread is a connection for cloth but not for the needle⁴¹⁵, the thread alone must cross the cloth three times, for two stitches.. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, only if it is knotted on both sides. The words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: He who straightens out the sides on the Sabbath⁴¹⁶ 10:9), it is the regular procedure in sewing a garment that when a seam is sewn the two sides are stretched to be equal before the thread is knotted. Babli 95a. is liable because of sewing. He should have said, because of sewing and tying knots.

footnotes: ⁴¹¹ This paragraph is from Kilaim ⁴¹² For him woolen and linen cloths create kilaim ⁴¹³ Mishnah Kilaim ⁴¹⁴ Either one follows the rabbis or R. Jehudah; in no case does one need more than three stitches. ⁴¹⁵ If one stitch has been made and now the needle is sticking in the cloth, this does not count since the needle will eventually be removed. In order to create kilaim ⁴¹⁶ According to Maimonides (Šabbat

Tearing applies to textiles and cutting to hides⁴¹⁷. Tearing in the middle and cutting from the sides. There are some who switch, tearing of hides and cutting of textiles. Tearing of hides, those soft ones, and cutting of textiles, felt.

footnotes: ⁴¹⁷ In Mishnah 2, cutting cloth to prepare for sewing is forbidden as “tearing”. In Mishnah 3, cutting hides is forbidden as a different category. What is the rationale behind this double count, and does “tearing” only apply to textiles and cutting to hides and leather?

3⁴¹⁸. One who catches a purple snail and crushes it. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable twice. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable only once. He who says twice, one because of catching and one because of depriving of life. But he who says once, this is because of depriving of life. Does he not have catching⁴¹⁹, whose nature is in doubt. It is not quite clear what is being proved here. Either the emphasis on the taḥaš being a pure animal implies that only catching wild pure animals is a violation, or, since the taḥaš was a temporary phenomenon, it does not imply anything for later generations and no catching of wild animals is a Sabbath violation.? ⁴²⁰ It comes like what Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Meïr said: 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 to a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves⁴²¹. 69:32.. It is written, it sprouts a horn.

footnotes: ⁴¹⁸ Here starts discussion of Mishnah 3. Babli 75a. ⁴¹⁹ The scribe wrote: Does he not have catching? He does not have catching! The second sentence was unnecessarily deleted by the corrector. The only animal hides used for the construction of the Tabernacle were those of rams, which are domesticated and do not need to be caught, and the taḥaš ⁴²⁰ The following is from Chapter 2, Notes 111–114. ⁴²¹ Ps

“Who slaughters it.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no slaughter here; slaughter is a derivative of wounding. And why was it (not)⁴²²ˋ (II §72). stated with it? Only because we stated the proceedings of a meal it was stated with it.

footnotes: ⁴²² It seems that this word should be deleted; it is not in the quote of the sentence in Or zarua

“Who tans it.” What tanning was for the Tabernacle? They were drafting on them. What were they drafting on them? They were drawing lines with a ruler⁴²³. ⁴²⁴, considering the unicorn as a non-kosher animal and stating that nevertheless the Tent of Meeting was covered by its hides. It follows that what Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, it is permitted to make tents from the hide of an impure animal.

footnotes: ⁴²³ Since the hides were used as roofing, there is no indication that they had been shaved off and were tanned. The answer is that in order to be cut to size, they had to be tanned so that at least in the interior lines could be drawn to guide the cutter. ⁴²⁴ It seems that this sentence is misplaced here and belongs to the preceding discussion of the taḥaš

“Who rubs it clean⁵.” What kind of erasure was in the tabernacle? Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They were rubbing the hide⁴²⁵ on a pillar. One who rubbed hide clear on a pillar is liable. For what is he liable? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, because of rubbing clean. That is, if it is new. But if it be old⁴²⁶, it is the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Since they disagreed⁴²⁷: “One who sweeps, who sprinkles⁴²⁸, who makes cheese⁴²⁹, “who makes hard cheese.”, who makes butter⁴³⁰. Rashi: He makes soft cheese and lets it separate from the whey., who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable for a purification sacrifice. But the Sages say, it is because of Sabbath rest⁴³¹.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who sweeps, who sprinkles, is liable because of threshing. He who makes cheese, who makes butter, is liable because of kneading. He who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable because of harvesting. He who squeezes budding olives is liable because of harvesting. Who needs this? Rebbi Eliezer⁴³².

footnotes: ⁵ To remove both hair outside and remainders of flesh inside to prepare for the tanning process which turns hide into leather. ⁴²⁵ The hides used to makes the covers of the Tabernacles, to clean them from all remainders of flesh clinging to the insides. ⁴²⁶ And rubbing will not change the nature of anything. ⁴²⁷ Tosephta 9:13, Babli 95a. ⁴²⁸ He sweeps or sprinkles water on a dirt floor. For R. Eliezer it is forbidden since he might fill in uneven spots in the floor. For the Sages representing R. Simeon this would be an unintended consequence which never creates liability. ⁴²⁹ According to a Geonic commentary quoted in Arukh ⁴³⁰ Definition of Arukh ⁴³¹ Rabbinic restrictions. ⁴³² Since these have no oil, they are squeezed to make them edible as fruit which is permitted for R. Simeon.

He who files off heads of poles is liable because of cutting⁴³³. He who applies salve on a wet bandage⁴³⁴, -ii, n.. is liable because of rubbing clean.

footnotes: ⁴³³ Babli 75b ⁴³⁴ Latin splenium

“If one erased a big letter where there is space to write in its stead two letters, he is liable. If he wrote one large letter even though there is space to write in its stead two letters, he is not liable. Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rabbi Yose says, this is more serious about him who erases than about him who writes that he who erases in order to correct is liable but he who writes in order to spoil is not liable.¹⁴³⁶” It may happen that one writes a single dot and is liable for it because of writing and because of erasing; it may happen that one erases a single dot and is liable for it because of writing and because of erasing. How is this? If it was a ד and he makes it ר ,ר and he makes it ד; he is liable because of writing and because of erasing⁴³⁷”, “one erases a single dot on top”; the words “on top” were erased by the corrector, but they are quoted in Or zaruaˋ II §77, Roqeaḥ 86.).

footnotes: ¹ Babli 75b, Tosephta 11:9–10. ⁴³⁶ In general, any action to spoil does not create liability. In this particular case, if a single letter was erased so that there is no longer a recognizable lexeme it is spoiling. But correcting a single letter so that what was not a word now is one creates liability. ⁴³⁷ If both the words with ד or with ר make sense. Babli 104b. (The original text of the Leiden ms. reads: “one writes a single dot on top

4. What building was at the Sanctuary? They were putting the planks on top of the bases⁴³⁷”, “one erases a single dot on top”; the words “on top” were erased by the corrector, but they are quoted in Or zaruaˋ II §77, Roqeaḥ 86.). But was this not temporary³⁹⁶? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word³⁹⁷ 55b., it was as though permanent. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that He will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were permanent. This implies, a temporary building is a building. This implies, even from the side⁴³⁸. This implies even if was put on top of something else. Does it imply that building on implements is building⁴³⁹? The bases are like soil⁴⁴⁰.

footnotes: ⁴³⁷ If both the words with ד or with ר make sense. Babli 104b. (The original text of the Leiden ms. reads: “one writes a single dot on top ³⁹⁶ Tying a knot or untying is a Sabbath violation if the knot is intended to be permanent. Since the ropes had to be untied when the Tabernacle was transported, tying and untying could not be Sabbath violations. ³⁹⁷ By Divine order. Since tying and untying was not a decision humans could make; it could as well be considered permanent. In 15 this is a declarative sentence; it is the equivalent of being permanent. Babli Eruvin ⁴³⁸ Since the planks were simply put into the bases without either mortar or screws, putting them up was not professional work. “From the side” is a general expression for “nonprofessional”. ⁴³⁹ This would forbid even putting a pot on top of another pot to keep food warm. ⁴⁴⁰ The planks are never put into the bases unless the latter are firmly stuck in the ground; it is as if the walls of the tabernacle were set into the soil.

It was stated⁴⁴¹: “If one brings the stone and another one the mortar, he who brings the mortar is liable. Rebbi Yose says, both are liable.” Rebbi Yose is of the opinion that stone without mortar is building⁴⁴². Everybody agrees that if one put up mortar first and someone then brought stone that he is liable. “The builder who set the stone on top of the row⁴⁴³, -ūs, f., Greek δὁμος. is liable.⁴⁴⁴” For whom is this needed? For the rabbis⁴⁴⁵. One who put up planks and one who put up adobe walls is liable because of building⁴⁴⁶.

footnotes: ⁴⁴¹ Tosephta 11:1, Babli 102b, with different attributions. ⁴⁴² A common Roman building method. ⁴⁴³ Latin domus ⁴⁴⁴ Continuation on the Tosephta. The fact that it needs a skilled craftsman to exactly adjust the stone even if no mortar is used makes it forbidden Sabbath work. ⁴⁴⁵ Who in general require mortar as a sign of building activity, but not in this case. ⁴⁴⁶ As the Mishnah stated, tearing down only creates liability if it is for the purpose of building anew.

“And who tears down,” but only for a need⁴⁴⁶. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who braids a palm-leaf basket is liable because of building⁴⁴⁷ vessels does not mean that there is no building of vessels. The Babli 75b has a completely different understanding of R. Simeon ben Laqish’s statement: “He who decorates a vessel or blows a glass vessel is liable because of “hitting with a hammer.”. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who blows a glass vessel is liable because of building. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There are things which are close but far away; and there are things which are far away but close⁴⁴⁸. He who braids a palm-leaf basket, and he who blows a glass vessel, and he who makes a vessel in a form⁴⁴⁹, all are because of building. He who selects, who filters⁴⁵⁰, and who sifts, all because of removing waste. Each of them is separately liable⁴⁵¹. And why was handing over not stated with them⁴⁵²? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages⁴⁵³. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi: In addition, there is handing over. And why was it not stated with them? All categories of work involve one, and this one two⁴⁵⁴. All categories of work have derivatives, but this has no derivative.

footnotes: ⁴⁴⁶ As the Mishnah stated, tearing down only creates liability if it is for the purpose of building anew. ⁴⁴⁷ The rule that there is no building with ⁴⁴⁸ There are very diverse activities which are classified under the same category for the Sabbath, and there are distinct categories which may be represented by the same abstract definition, as explained in the sequel. ⁴⁴⁹ Greek τύπος, ὁ. The vessel is cast. ⁴⁵⁰ R. David Fraenckel points out that “filtering” should be replaced by “winnowing” since filtering was reduced to either selecting or sifting (Note 325). But selecting, winnowing, and sifting are three similar activities but listed as three different categories (“close but far away”) whereas the very different activities in fabricating vessels mentioned in the preceding sentence are all classified under the same heading (“far away but close”). ⁴⁵¹ Since they are separately listed in the Mishnah. ⁴⁵² Why were the transactions described in Mishnaiot 1:1–2 not mentioned in the list of forbidden actions? ⁴⁵³ In Mishnah 11:1, one who throws from one private domain over a public domain into another private domain, R. Aqiba declares liable but the Sages do not. There is no universally accepted definition of “handing from one domain to another.” ⁴⁵⁴ Since the numerals are in the feminine, they refer to domains, not to persons, as noted by R. David Fraenckel.

MISHNAH: They said another principle. Anything which can be preserved and one preserves its kind if he took it out on the Sabbath he is obligated for a purification sacrifice because of it⁹, but for anything which cannot be preserved and one does not preserve its kind, if he took it out on the Sabbath only the one who preserves is obligated.

footnotes: ⁹ One starts to detail the rules of the category mentioned last. The biblical prohibition is restricted to valuables. However, if a person considers valuable what for others is not, the item becomes biblically forbidden to him for transport.

HALAKHAH: 5. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: This⁴⁵⁵ has been said for idol worship. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this has been said for things forbidden for usufruct⁴⁵⁶. Rav Ḥisda said, this has been said for minimal quantities⁴⁵⁷. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable for a purification sacrifice. There are Tannaim who state, a minimal amount⁴⁵⁸. He who said he is liable for a purification sacrifice supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said a minimal amount supports Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Joḥanan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: For example, the wad which she prepared for her menstrual period⁴⁶¹ 4:6. Mishnah 3 had stated that materials whose minimal sizes for impurity are different do not combine for impurity. Mishnah 6 states an exception, viz., that materials that may be used to make chairs or beds do combine; similarly to what was stated for the rules of the Sabbath combination material follows the rules of the material which requires a larger minimal amount. Cloth becomes impure in general if it is at least (3 thumb-widths)2 wide, but indirectly if a person who is a source of impurity sits on it (מִדְרָס) only by (3 hand-widths)2. The minimal size of a piece of sack-cloth for impurity is (4 hand-widths)2, for leather it is (5 hand-widths)2, and for bast mats (6 hand-widths)2. According to R. Simeon any of these materials if made specifically as a seat becomes impure in the size of (1 hand-width)2; for him the problem does not arise since he accepts impurity of combined material only for מִדְרָס..

footnotes: ⁴⁵⁵ The statement in Mishnah 5 that “anything which cannot be preserved and one does not preserve its kind, if he took it out on the Sabbath only the one who preserves is obligated.” What is anything which cannot be preserved? ⁴⁵⁶ While idols and their appurtenances also are forbidden for usufruct, the reasoning which would apply the Mishnah to idols applies to anything forbidden for usufruct. ⁴⁵⁷ In his opinion, anything less than the amounts stated in the following Mishnaiot is not enough to be preserved; the Mishnah does not refer to any particular set of things. ⁴⁵⁸ Anybody who preserves something which generally is discarded makes it important for himself. Therefore for such a person the minimal amounts stated before do not apply but he is liable for taking out even the most minute amount as long as he preserves this amount by itself. This argument is possible only for R. Eleazar and R. Joḥanan and conforms to R. Simeon’s position in Mishnah 8:1. ⁴⁶¹ Mishnah Meˋilah

MISHNAH: One who brings out straw filling the mouth of a cow, wood shavings filling the mouth of a camel, grain¹⁰ filling the mouth of a sheep, grasses filling the mouth of a goat. Moist garlic leaves and onion leaves the volume of a dried fig¹¹ 17:7)., if dry filling the mouth of a goat; they are not combined since their measures are not identical. One who brings out foodstuffs in the volume of a dried fig; they are combined since their measures are the same except for their shells, and their pits, and their stalks, and their grit, and their bran. Rebbi Jehudah says except for pods of lentils which are cooked with them.

footnotes: ¹⁰ Cut grain with stalks and hulls. ¹¹ Palestinian dried figs of which the large ones would only qualify as medium sized in other countries (Mishnah Kelim

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive⁴⁶⁰. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated⁴⁶¹ 4:6. Mishnah 3 had stated that materials whose minimal sizes for impurity are different do not combine for impurity. Mishnah 6 states an exception, viz., that materials that may be used to make chairs or beds do combine; similarly to what was stated for the rules of the Sabbath combination material follows the rules of the material which requires a larger minimal amount. Cloth becomes impure in general if it is at least (3 thumb-widths)² wide, but indirectly if a person who is a source of impurity sits on it (מִדְרָס) only by (3 hand-widths)². The minimal size of a piece of sack-cloth for impurity is (4 hand-widths)², for leather it is (5 hand-widths)2, and for bast mats (6 hand-widths)2. According to R. Simeon any of these materials if made specifically as a seat becomes impure in the size of (1 hand-width)2; for him the problem does not arise since he accepts impurity of combined material only for מִדְרָס.: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rebbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. From where in היסק462 3:4 הסיקה; as verb later in Mishnah 12:1 להַסִּיק “to heat”) is derived from Aramaic סוק “to ascend, climb”; it means “to make rise (the flames)” and clearly is inappropriate here. Very tentatively I am proposing to translate הֵסֵק as “load” from Accadic asāqu, ašāqu “to load, distribute” Arabic وسقة “load”.? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana, because they are equal in היסק. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying היסק⁴⁶³? Rebbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rebbi Yose, because they are equal in היסק. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup⁴⁶⁴? Rebbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat⁴⁶⁵; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable⁴⁶⁶. Rebbi Ila said that Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable⁴⁶⁷? Rebbi Hoshaia agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency⁴⁶⁸. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig⁴⁶⁹?

footnotes: ⁴⁶⁰ In Mishnah 6, related items have different minimal amounts which trigger liability. Any material which has a smaller threshold is added to one which has a larger one to be counted with it but not vice versa. If a person carries grasses and straw together, the entire load follows the rules of straw since the latter requires the volume of a cow’s mouth whereas the former already is a load by the volume of a goat’s mouth which is smaller. Babli 76a. ⁴⁶¹ Mishnah Meˋilah ⁴⁶³ This seems to be excluded by the Mishnah, which indicates varying loads. ⁴⁶⁴ The meaning of this sentence is totally obscure. ⁴⁶⁵ The minimum allowed for bone (Mishnah 8:6) is larger than that for meat. It would be possible to translate פיסתה as “slice of bread” but since both meat and bread are human food their minimum is the volume of a dried fig and therefore they combine. ⁴⁶⁶ Even though it is questionable whether goats eat straw; Babli 76a (in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish). ⁴⁶⁷ If the sick person is unable to eat the full volume of a dried fig. The amounts quoted in the Mishnah are fixed quantities. ⁴⁶⁸ As the text stands it is a triviality and the reference to leniency is unexplained. The parallel in the Babli states that a cow’s mouthful of straw even if taken for a camel creates liability, a goat’s mouthful does not. But the Babli should not be used to interpret the Yerushalmi in the absence of supporting evidence. ⁴⁶⁹ This seems to refer to onion- and garlic leaves, where the volume of a dried fig is much too large when these are used as spices. Since onion and garlic leaves give taste in small quantities, their minimal amounts should be much smaller than indicated in the Mishnah. The Mishnah can refer only to onion or garlic as main dish.

Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: This is what you are saying for red ones. But black ones are separated⁴⁷⁰.

footnotes: ⁴⁷⁰ This refers to R. Jehudah’s statement about lentils cooked in their pods. His statement is acceptable only for fresh lentils, not for dry ones whose pods have become indigestible.