משנה: אֵין בֵּין יוֹם טוֹב לַשַּׁבָּת אֶלָּא אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ בִּלְבָד. אֵין בֵּין שַׁבָּת לְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה זְדוֹנוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם וְזֶה זְדוֹנוֹ בְּהִיכָּרֵת׃ MISHNAH: The only difference between holiday and Sabbath refers to preparation of food191There are many differences in the rules which are different for holidays and for the Sabbath. What is stated here is that what is biblically forbidden on the Sabbath (enumerated in Sabbath 7:2) is biblically forbidden on a holiday except anything used for the preparation of food which is explicitly exempted from prohibition (Ex. 12:16.. The only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that in the first case its intentional desecration is punished by man and in the second case by extirpation192Anything biblically forbidden on a Sabbath is forbidden on the Day of Atonement without exception (but eating is forbidden on the Day of Atonement and required on the Sabbath.).
הלכה: [תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. אַף מַכְשִׁירֵי אוֹכֶל נֶפֶשׁ הִתִּירוּ. מַה בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רַב חִסְדָּי אוֹמֵר. לְחַדֵּד רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל שְׁפוּד בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הוֹצִיא אֵשׁ מֵהָאֲבָנִים בֵּינֵיהוֹן. תַּנָּא רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי דְּבַרזִילָה. הוּא הַדָּבָר. מָהוּ הוּא הַדָּבָר. לְחַדֵּד רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁלְשְׁפוּד הוּא הַדָּבָר אוֹ לְהוֹצִיא אֵשׁ מֵהָאֲבָנִים הוּא הַדָּבָר. לֵית לָךְ אֶלָּא כְהָדָא. אֵין מַשְׁחִיזִין אֶת הַסַּכִּין אֲבָל מַשִּׂיאָהּ עַל גַּבֵּי חֲבֵירָתָהּ. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּי. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָא הִיא. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוּדָא בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. כְּדֵי לְהַעֲבִיר שַׁמְנוּנִית שֶׁעָלֶיהָ. HALAKHAH: 193Corrector’s addition. Except for the introductory sentence this is copied from Yom Ṭov 5:2 (Notes 82–88).[It was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, they also permitted actions preparatory to the preparation of food194Tosephta 1:7. Since the preparation of food is permitted on a holiday but prohibited on a Sabbath, there necessarily is a gray area where the decision between permitted and prohibited actions must be rabbinical by biblical standards.. What is between them? Rav Ḥisday said, to sharpen the tip of the spit is between them. Rebbi Ḥanania the son of Rebbi Abbahu said, to produce fire from stones is between them. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi stated from Barzilah: what is the matter? Is the matter to sharpen the tip of the spit, or to produce fire from stones? You only have the following195Yom Ṭov 3:8.: “One does not sharpen the knife but he cleanses it on another.” Rav Ḥisday said, this is Rebbi Jehudah’s, for Rebbi Jehudah in the name of Samuel said, it is everybody’s opinion, to remove the fat on it.]
כָּל־אֵילּוּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֵין צוֹרֶךְ לוֹמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת. אִילֵּין אִינּוּן. וְהָא אִית לָךְ חוֹרַנִין. סְקִילָה בַשַּׁבָּת. אֵין סְקִילָה בַיּוֹם טוֹב. כָּרֵת בַּשַּׁבָּת. אֵין כָּרֵת בַּיּוֹם טוֹב. מַכּוֹת בַּיּוֹם טוֹב. אֵין מַכּוֹת בַּשַּׁבָּת. אִין תֵּימַר. בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן אוֹכל נֶפֶשׁ אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. מַשְׁחִילִין פֵּירוֹת דֶּרֶךְ אֲרוּבָּה בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֲבָל לֹא בַשַּׁבָּת. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא. שׁוֹחֲקִין עֲצֵי בְשָׂמִים לַמִּילָה בַיּוֹם טוֹב אֲבָל לֹא בַשַּׁבָּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְהוּא שֶׁמָּל. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא דְתַנּי. מוֹדִין חֲכָמִין לְרִבִּי מֵאִיר בְּחוֹתָמוֹת שֶׁבַּקַּרְקַע שֶׁמְפַקְפְּקִין וּמַפְקִיעִין וּמַתִּירִין וְחוֹתְכִין. בַּשַּׁבָּת מְפַקְפְּקִין אֲבָל לֹא מַפְקִיעִין וְלֹא מַתִּירִין וְלֹא חוֹתְכִין. וּבַכֵּלִים בַּשַּׁבָּת מוּתָּר. אֵין צוֹרֶךְ לוֹמַר בְּיוֹם טוֹב. 196The paragraph is from Yom Tov5:2, Notes 77 ff., based on the quote from Mishnah 5:2.“All these were said on a holiday, so much more on the Sabbath..” Are these it? Are there no others197One proves that the list is incomplete.? There is stoning on the Sabbath, there is no stoning on a holiday. There is extirpation on the Sabbath, there is no extirpation on a holiday. There is flogging on a holiday, there is no flogging on the Sabbath198Desecrating the Sabbath is a capital crime, intentional desecration being punishable by stoning if there are witnesses, by divine extirpation otherwise. Desecration of a holiday is a simple transgression, intentional desecration before witnesses is punishable by flogging.. If you would say, we are coming to state cases connected with food, did we not state: “one lowers produce through a skylight on the holiday but not on the Sabbath199Mishnah Yom Tov 5:1.”? In addition from the following, one grinds aromatic wood for a circumcision on a holiday but not on the Sabbath200Babli Šabbat 134a.. Rebbi Yose said, only if he circumcised201Since grinding aromatic wood is not preparation of food it may be done if the necessity is clearly established, not in advance of an expected event.. In addition from what was stated202The following is copied from Yom Tov 4:2, Notes 60–61., “The Sages agree with Rebbi Meïr about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.”
אֵין בֵּין שַׁבָּת לְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה זְדוֹנוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם וְזֶה זְדוֹנוֹ בְּהִיכָּרֵת׃ הָא בְתַשְׁלוּמִין שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוְין. מַתְנִיתָה דְרִבִּי נְחוֹנְייָה בֶּן הַקָּנָה. דְּתַנֵּי. רִבִּי נְחוֹנְייָה בֶּן הַקָּנָה אוֹמֵר. יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים כַּשַּׁבָּת בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר. מְחוּייָבֵי כְרִיתוֹת כִּמְחוּייָבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין. מַה נְפַק מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָבוּנָא. נַעֲרָה נִדָּה בֵינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי מָנָא אָמַר. אַף אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ בֵינֵיהוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְרִבִּי נְחוֹנְייָה בֶּן הַקָּנָה. מַה שַׁבָּת אֵין לָה הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ אַף יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֵין לוֹ הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרוֹ. וְאֵילּוּ הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן הֵיתֵר אַחַר אִיסּוּרָן מְשַׁלֵּם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא. מַה שַׁבָּת יֵשׁ בָּהּ כָּרֵת אַף יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים יֵשׁ בּוֹ כָּרֵת. וְאֵילּוּ הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן כָּרֵת אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי אָמַר. מַכּוֹת וְכָרֵת מַה אָֽמְרִין בָּהּ אִילֵּין תַּנָּייָא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. צְרִיכָה לָרַבָּנִן. רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָעֵי. וְלָמָּה לֹא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר. נֶאֱמַר כָּרֵת בַּשַּׁבָּת וְנֶאֱמַר כָּרֵת בְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים. מַה כָרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת אֵין מַכּוֹת אֶצֶל כָּרֵת. אַף כָּרֵת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים אֵין מַכּוֹת אֶצֶל כָּרֵת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. בְּרַם כְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אִם מַכּוֹת אֶצֶל מִיתָה יֵשׁ לוֹ לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן מַכּוֹת אֶצֶל כָּרֵת. דְּאִיתַפַּלָּגוֹן. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אִם הִתְרוּ בוֹ לְשֵׁם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ לוֹקֶה. לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נִסְקַל. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ הִתְרוּ בוֹ לְשֵׁם אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. מֵאַחַר שֶׁהִתְרוּ בוֹ לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נִסְקַל. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אֲפִילוּ כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. תַּמָּן לִשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים וְהָכָא לְדָבָר אֶחָד. 203This paragraph appears also in Ketubot3:1 (כ), and in slightly different form in Terumot 7:1, in both cases in a much longer discussion about payment for torts inflicted during the commission of a crime. It is commonly held that civil claims cannot be enforced if the perpetrator is subject to criminal prosecution in a capital case; there is dispute whether this extends to cases punishable by whipping and/or extirpation by judgment of Heaven.“The only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that in the first case its intentional desecration is punished by man and in the second case by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules204Payments for torts committed while desecrating the Day of Atonement are treated as if they were committed on the Sabbath.. This is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment. What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna said, a menstruating adolescent girl is between them205If a single girl close to adulthood is raped, the rapist is subject to a fine and he has to marry her (Deut. 22:28–29). If he has sexual relations with her, he is subject to extirpation (Lev. 20:18).. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them206The wife’s sister is forbidden during the wife’s lifetime (Lev. 18:18). No punishment is indicated in that verse, but in v. 26 all incest prohibitions are treated as equal; therefore it is implied that the wife’s sister is prohibited under penalty of extirpation by Heaven.. In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started; so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, these may become permitted after their prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to the Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation does not apply to these, he has to pay. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaim about whipping and extirpation207Since the prior discussion (not repeated here) was between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish, it is of interest to know what are the positions of the Tannaim R. Neḥoniah ben Haqanah and R. Simeon ben Menassiah.? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Rebbi Tarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath208While desecrating the Sabbath is a capital crime, a desecration can be prosecuted in a human court only if the act was witnessed and criminal intent was proven by testimony that the perpetrator was duly warned before the act not to commit a capital crime. A Sabbath desecration not prosecutable in court is punishable by Heaven by extirpation (Ex. 31:14). and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there can be no whipping connected to extirpation209In the Babli, Ketubot 34b/35a, this is deduced from Ex. 21:22–23, where payment is due if a pregnant woman is injured and an abortion caused, but no payment is due if the woman is murdered., so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no whipping in a case involving extirpation. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes210Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple prohibition (Lev. 22:28), punishable by whipping. Slaughter as idolatrous sacrifice is a capital crime.. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death211Since no conviction is possible without proof of criminal intent, actual prosecution is possible only if the nature of the crime to be committed was known to the perpetrator. For R. Joḥanan the rules apply only to cases that actually come before the court.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry212For R. Simeon ben Laqish the rules of capital cases apply if capital punishment is a legal possibility even if the circumstances of the actual case prohibit its imposition.. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case213The prohibiton of slaughtering an animal and its young also applies to profane slaughter; it is unrelated to the prohibition of idolatry. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Ḥulin81b, where it is pointed out that one has to presume that the first animal was slaughtered for food but the second for idolatry; only in that case does one act result in two transgressions. But in the question asked here one deals with one transgression which, however, cannot be prosecuted for lack of witnesses..
עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. מַה בֵין אִילֵּין תַּנָּייָא לְאִילֵּין רַבָּנִן. לָאוִים. לֹא כְרִיתוֹת. רִבִּי יוּדָן אָמַר. הַבָּא עַל הַמַּמְזֶרֶת אִית בֵּינֵיהוֹן. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה אָמַר. אַף הַמֵּצִית גְּדִישׁוֹ שֶׁלְחֲבֵירוֹ בְּיוֹם טוֹב בֵּינֵיהוֹן. עַל דַּעְתּוֹן דְּאִילֵּין תַּנָּייָא. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין בָּהֶן כָּרֵת מְשַׁלֵּם. עַל דַּעְתּוֹן דְּאִילֵּין רַבָּנִן. הוֹאִיל וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן מַכּוֹת אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. מֵעַתָּה אֵילּוּ נְעָרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן [קְנָס] לֹא כְרַבָּנִן. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. תִּיפְתָּר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בְּמַמְזֵר שֶׁבָּא עַל הַמַּמְזֶרֶת. וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לֹא יְבִמְתּוֹ הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה. תִּיפְתָּר. שֶׁהָיוּ לְאָחִיו בָּנִים וְאִירֶם אִשָּׁה וָמֵת וּבָא אָחִיו וְאָנְסָהּ. 214This paragraph is the end of the long discussion about the possibility of fines if a crime was committed and has absolutely no connection with the topic discussed here. It is copied from Ketubot together with the preceding paragraph. According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaim and those rabbis215The Tannaim quoted in the preceding paragraph and the rabbis (presumed to be R. Meïr and his students) who formulated Mishnah Ketubot 3:1 which states that fines are due in all cases except capital crimes.? Prohibitions without extirpation. Rebbi Judan said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them216The bastard is a child born from adulterous or incestuous sexual relations. It is stated in Deut. 23:2: No bastard may come into the Eternal’s congregation. This may be read (with Maimonides, Issure Biah 15:2) that marriage with a (male or female) bastard is punishable; then the rape of an unmarried bastard girl unquestionably requires a fine. Or it may be read (with RAVaD) that “come to” in rabbinic interpretation everywhere means sexual relations; then the rape of a bastard girl also incurs the penalty of flogging. Only relations and marriage between a male and a female certain bastards are permitted according to everybody.. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday217Whose violation is punished by flogging; there is no extirpation. is between them. These Tannaim think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the adolescent girls who can claim a fine” cannot follow the rabbis218Since it clearly states that crimes punishable by Heaven incur fines in human courts.! Rebbi Mattaniah said, explain it according to everybody if it refers to a bastard male who sleeps with a bastard girl216The bastard is a child born from adulterous or incestuous sexual relations. It is stated in Deut. 23:2: No bastard may come into the Eternal’s congregation. This may be read (with Maimonides, Issure Biah 15:2) that marriage with a (male or female) bastard is punishable; then the rape of an unmarried bastard girl unquestionably requires a fine. Or it may be read (with RAVaD) that “come to” in rabbinic interpretation everywhere means sexual relations; then the rape of a bastard girl also incurs the penalty of flogging. Only relations and marriage between a male and a female certain bastards are permitted according to everybody. But is his brother’s wife219This is a separate Note, not connected to the preceding. According to the Mishnah the brother’s virgin wife is entitled to the fine if she is raped by the brother in law. If the brother is alive, it is adultery, a capital crime. If the brother is dead, since she still is a virgin she has no children. If the brother has no children from another woman, any sex act between her and her brother in law, even rape, makes her the brother in law’s wedded wife, with a claim to ketubah but no fine. not his sister-in-law? Explain it that the man’s brother had children and had performed the preliminary wedding with a woman when he died and his brother came and raped her220She is forbidden to him (Lev. 18:16) and by the argument of Note 206 there is extirpation..