עַל גַּבֵּי חֶרֶס — מוּתָּר. However, placing them on a scalding fragment of earthenware is permitted, as there is no concern of extinguishing or kindling.
וְרַבָּה אָמַר: עַל גַּבֵּי חֶרֶס נָמֵי אָסוּר, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מוֹלֵיד רֵיחָא. רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: סַחוֹפֵי כָּסָא אַשִּׁירָאֵי בְּיוֹמָא טָבָא — אָסוּר, מַאי טַעְמָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּקָמוֹלֵיד רֵיחָא. And Rabba said: Placing the spices on a hot piece of earthenware is also prohibited, because it produces a new scent in the earthenware, and one may not create new things on a Festival. The Gemara notes that similarly, Rabba and Rav Yosef both said the following: It is prohibited to overturn a cup containing perfume onto silk garments on a Festival. What is the reason for this prohibition? It is because it produces a new scent in the garment.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִמּוֹלְלוֹ וּמֵרִיחַ בּוֹ וְקוֹטְמוֹ וּמֵרֵיחַ בּוֹ? הָתָם — רֵיחָא מִיהָא אִיתָא, וְאוֹסוֹפֵי הוּא דְּקָא מוֹסִיף רֵיחָא. הָכָא — אוֹלוֹדֵי הוּא דְּקָמוֹלֵיד רֵיחָא. רָבָא אָמַר: עַל גַּבֵּי גַּחֶלֶת נָמֵי מוּתָּר, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַבִּשְׂרָא אַגּוּמְרֵי. The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the case discussed in the following baraita: One may press a piece of aromatic wood between his fingers and smell it, and one may also snip off a piece of it in order to release its fragrance and smell it? In those cases too he produces a scent. The Gemara answers: There, the scent exists in any case, and he merely adds to the fragrance, as his pressing or snipping causes the smell to be stronger. Here, on the other hand, where he overturns a cup of perfume on clothing, he produces a new scent. Rava, however, said: It is even permitted to sprinkle the aromatic spices on the coals themselves, just as it is permitted to place meat on coals for roasting.
דָּרֵשׁ רַב גְּבִיהָא מִבֵּי כְתִיל אַפִּתְחָא דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא: קִטּוּרָא שְׁרֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַמֵּימָר: מַאי ״קִטּוּרָא״? אִי קִטּוּרָא בִּידֵי — מַעֲשֵׂה אוּמָּן הוּא, וְאִי לְעַשֵּׁן — אָסוּר, דְּהָא קָא מְכַבֶּה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: לְעוֹלָם לְעַשֵּׁן, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַבִּשְׂרָא אַגּוּמְרֵי. The Gemara relates that Rav Geviha from Bei Katil once taught at the entrance to the house of the Exilarch that ketura is permitted on a Festival; but he did not add any further clarification. Ameimar said to him: What is the meaning of ketura? If it means tying [ketura] ornamental knots by hand, this is the act of a craftsman and is therefore certainly prohibited on a Festival. And if it is referring to burning incense [ketoret], this too is prohibited, as he extinguishes some of the coals when he sprinkles the aromatic powder on them. Rav Ashi said to him: Actually, it is referring to burning incense, which is permitted, just as it is permitted to place meat on coals for roasting.
אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַמֵּימָר: מַאי ״קִטּוּרָא״? אִי קִטּוּרָא בִּידֵי — מַעֲשֵׂה אוּמָּן הוּא. אִי לְעַשֵּׁן — אָסוּר דְּקָא מוֹלֵיד רֵיחָא! אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲנָא אַמְרִיתַהּ נִהֲלֵיהּ, וּמִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה אַמְרִיתַהּ נִהֲלֵיהּ: לְעוֹלָם לְעַשֵּׁן, וּמִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַבִּשְׂרָא אַגּוּמְרֵי. Some say a slightly different version of this story, in which Ameimar said to Rav Geviha: What is the meaning of ketura? If it means tying ornamental knots by hand, this is the act of a craftsman, which is prohibited. If it is referring to burning incense, this too is prohibited, as he produces a new scent. Rav Ashi said: I said this halakha to Rav Geviha, and I said it in the name of a great man, Rava, that actually it is referring to burning incense, which is permitted, just as it is permitted to place meat on coals for roasting.
וְעוֹשִׂין גְּדִי מְקוּלָּס. תַּנְיָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: תּוֹדוֹס אִישׁ רוֹמִי הִנְהִיג אֶת בְּנֵי רוֹמִי לֶאֱכוֹל גְּדִי מְקוּלָּס בְּלֵילֵי פְּסָחִים. שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: אִלְמָלֵא תּוֹדוֹס אַתָּה, גּוֹזְרָנוּ עָלֶיךָ נִדּוּי, שֶׁאַתָּה מַאֲכִיל אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ. § It is taught in the mishna that one of Rabban Gamliel’s three leniencies was that one may prepare a whole [mekulas] kid goat, meaning a goat roasted whole, with its entrails over its head, on the night of Passover. It is taught in a baraita in this regard that Rabbi Yosei says: Theodosius [Todos] of Rome, leader of the Jewish community there, instituted the custom for the Roman Jews to eat whole kids on the night of Passover, in commemoration of the practice followed in the Temple. The Sages sent a message to him: Were you not Theodosius, an important person, we would have decreed ostracism upon you, as you are feeding the Jewish people consecrated food, which may be eaten only in and around the Temple itself, outside the Temple.
קָדָשִׁים סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: כְּעֵין קָדָשִׁים. The Gemara expresses surprise: Can it enter your mind that the Sages really meant that Theodosius was feeding the Jewish people consecrated food outside the Temple? These goats are certainly not consecrated animals. Rather, say that he was feeding the Jewish people something similar to consecrated food, which people might mistake for a Paschal offering.
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מַתִּיר וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים: פָּרָתוֹ יוֹצְאָה בִּרְצוּעָה שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנֶיהָ. MISHNA: There are three things that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya permits and the Rabbis prohibit: His cow would go out on Shabbat with a decorative strap between its horns. Rabbi Elazar holds that such a strap is considered an ornament for the cow rather than a burden, whereas the Sages view it as a burden.
וּמְקָרְדִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְשׁוֹחֲקִין אֶת הַפִּלְפְּלִין בָּרֵחַיִם שֶׁלָּהֶן. And one may comb [mekardin] an animal with a fine comb on a Festival in order to remove ticks and dirt from its hair; the Rabbis prohibit this due to a concern that he might thereby come to wound or bruise the animal. And one may grind pepper needed on the Festival even in its own mill, although this appears similar to a weekday labor.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין מְקָרְדִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה חַבּוּרָה, אֲבָל מְקַרְצְפִין. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין מְקָרְדִין, אַף לֹא מְקַרְצְפִין. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not comb an animal to remove ticks and dirt from its hair on a Festival because this certainly creates a wound, but one may brush it with a wooden comb, as its blunt teeth do not wound the animal. But the Rabbis say: One may not comb, nor may one even brush.
גְּמָ׳ לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה חֲדָא פָּרָה הַוְיָא לֵיהּ? וְהָאָמַר רַב, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: תְּלֵיסַר אַלְפֵי עִגְלֵי הֲוָה מְעַשַּׂר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מֵעֶדְרֵיהּ כׇּל שַׁתָּא וְשַׁתָּא. תָּנָא: לֹא שֶׁלּוֹ הָיְתָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁל שְׁכֶנְתּוֹ הָיְתָה, וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא מִיחָה בָּהּ — נִקְרֵאת עַל שְׁמוֹ. GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s statement that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s cow would go out on Shabbat with a strap between its horns, the Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya had only one cow? But didn’t Rav say, and some say that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya would tithe from his herds thirteen thousand calves each and every year, which means that he had ten times that number of calves alone. Why, then, does the mishna speak of his cow? The Gemara answers that it is taught in the Tosefta: This cow was not his; rather, it was his neighbor’s. And because he did not protest her conduct and tell her that it is prohibited to do so, the cow was called by his name to his discredit, as if it were his.
וּמְקָרְדִין אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵיזֶהוּ קֵרוּד וְאֵיזֶהוּ קִרְצוּף? קֵרוּד — קְטַנִּים וְעוֹשִׂין חַבּוּרָה, קִרְצוּף — גְּדוֹלִים וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין חַבּוּרָה. § It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds that one may comb an animal on a Festival. The Sages taught in a baraita: What is considered combing and what is brushing? Combing is performed with a small-toothed comb and makes a wound; brushing is done with a large-toothed comb and does not make a wound.
וְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחְלוֹקוֹת בַּדָּבָר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר. מִיהוּ: קֵרוּד — קְטַנִּים, וְעוֹשִׂין חַבּוּרָה. קִרְצוּף — גְּדוֹלִים, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין חַבּוּרָה. וְלָא גָּזְרִינַן קִרְצוּף אַטּוּ קֵרוּד. And there are three disputes with regard to this matter. Rabbi Yehuda holds that an unintentional act, a permitted action from which an unintended prohibited labor ensues on Shabbat, is prohibited, as in his opinion it is prohibited to perform an action that involves a prohibited labor on Shabbat even if one has a permitted action in mind and does not intend to perform the labor in question. Therefore, one may not comb an animal in a manner that will cause a wound, even unintentionally. However, he differentiates between the cases: Although he prohibits combing with a small-toothed comb that makes a wound, he permits brushing with a large-toothed comb that does not make a wound, and we do not issue a decree and prohibit brushing due to combing, as there is no concern that people will err and come to permit even combing in the prohibited manner.
וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי נָמֵי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין — אָסוּר, וְגָזְרִינַן קִרְצוּף אַטּוּ קֵרוּד. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין — מוּתָּר, וּבֵין קֵרוּד וּבֵין קִרְצוּף שְׁרֵי. And the Rabbis also hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the fundamental issue that an unintentional act is prohibited. However, they maintain that we issue a decree and prohibit brushing due to combing. On the other hand, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya holds in accordance with the dissenting opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that an unintentional act is permitted. Therefore, both combing and brushing are permitted, as even if the combing or brushing bruises the animal, there is no transgression of a prohibition, as there was certainly no intention to cause the animal a wound.
אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן לְחוֹדֵיהּ: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, שֶׁהֲרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מוֹדֶה לוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: וְלֵימָא מָר, הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה שֶׁהֲרֵי חֲכָמִים מוֹדִים לוֹ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לִי, וְעוֹד שֶׁהֲרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מוֹדֶה לוֹ. Rava said that Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said, and some say that Rav Naḥman said this teaching himself: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that an unintentional act is permitted on Shabbat, as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya agrees with him. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: And let the Master say the opposite, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as the Rabbis agree with him. Rav Naḥman said to him: Fundamentally I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon; I am merely adding another reason for doing so, which is that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya agrees with him.