Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat 7:2:36-37

משנה: אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת. הַחוֹרֵשׁ הַזּוֹֹרֵעַ הַקּוֹצֵר הַמְעַמֵּר הַדָּשׁ וְהַזּוֹרֶה הַבּוֹרֵר וְהַטּוֹחֵן וְהַמְרַקֵּד הַלָּשׁ וְהָאוֹפֶה. הַגּוֹזֵז אֶת הַצֶּמֶר הַמְלַבְּנוֹ הַמְנַפְּסוֹ הַצּוֹבְעוֹ הַטּוֹוֶהוּ הַמֵּסֵיךְ וְהָעוֹשֶׂה שְׁנֵי בָתֵּי נִירִין הָאוֹרֵג שְׁנֵי חוּטִין הַבּוֹצֵעַ שְׁנֵי חוּטִין הַקּוֹשֵׁר וְהַמַּתִּיר. וְהַתּוֹפֵר שְׁתֵּי תְפִירוֹת הַקּוֹרֵעַ עַל מְנָת לִתְפֹּר שְׁתֵּי תְפִירוֹת. הַצָּד צְבִי הַשּׁוֹחֲטוֹ וְהַמַּפְשִׁיטוֹ הַמּוֹלְחוֹ הַמּוֹחֲקוֹ וְהַמְעַבְּדוֹ הַמְחַתְּכוֹ הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת וְהַמּוֹחֵק עַל מְנָת לִכְתּוֹב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת. הַבּוֹנֶה וְהַסּוֹתֵר הַמְכַבֶּה וְהַמַּבְעִיר וְהַמַּכֶּה בַפַּטִּישׁ וְהַמּוֹצִיא מֵרְשׁוּת לִרְשׁוּת הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת: 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 bakes⁴As noted earlier, since the Sabbath prohibition is repeated at the start of the rules of building the Tabernacle, Ex. 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 clean⁵To remove both hair outside and remainders of flesh inside to prepare for the tanning process which turns hide into leather., who tans it, who cuts it, who writes two letters, and who erases in order to write two letters⁶This series of 9 categories describes both sacrifices and the production of writing material which in pre-Mishnaic times was mostly leather..
He who builds, and who tears down, who extinguishes fire, and who lights fire, and who hits with a hammer⁷A name for the formal end of any production process., and who transports from one domain to another⁸This 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.; these are the 39 categories of work.

הלכה: אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת. מְנַיִין לַאֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת מִן הַתּוֹרָה. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמַן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. כְּנֶגֶד אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת מְלָאכָה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה. בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵֹי רִבִּי אָחָא. כָּל־הֵן דִּכְתִיב מְלָאכוֹת. שְׁתַיִם. אָמַר רִבִּי שִׁייָן. אַשְׁגָּרַת עֵיינֵהּ דְּרִבִּי אָחָא בְּכָל־אוֹרַיְתָא וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח כְּתִיב דָּא מִילְּתָא. בְּעָיָא דָא מִילְּתָא. וַיָּבֹ֥א הַבַּיְ֖תָה לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת מְלַאכְתּ֑וֹ מִנְהוֹן. וַיְכַ֤ל אֱלֹהִים֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔י מְלַאכְּתּ֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֑ה מִנְהוֹן. תַּנָּא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי. שֵׁ֥שֶׁת יָמִ֖ים תֹּאכַ֣ל מַצּ֑וֹת וּבַיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י עֲצֶ֨רֶת֙ לַֽיי אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ לֹ֥א תַֽעֲשֶׂ֖ה מְלָאכָֽה׃ הֲרֵי זֶה בָא לְהַשְׁלִים אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁכְּתוּבוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. HALAKHAH: “The categories of work are 39.” From where that the categories⁹⁶A 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.) 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 Torah⁹⁷The count works out if one counts all occurrences of מְלָאכָה together with its suffixed forms מְלַאכְתּוֹ, etc., but omitting all construct states מְלֶאכֶת.. 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 written⁹⁸The plural מְלָאכוֹת is not found in the Pentateuch. Therefore each occurrence of the word counts as one.. The following is necessary: He came into the house to do his work⁹⁹Gen. 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 did¹⁰⁰Gen. 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 work¹⁰¹Deut. 16:8, the last occurrence of the word in the Torah. comes to complete the 39 “works” written in the Torah.

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי. כְּנֶגֶד אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת פַּעַם שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּמִּשְׁכָּן עָבוֹדָה וּמְלָאכָה. 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 Tabernacle¹⁰²In Ex. and Num. Here again for the word עֲבוֹדָה the base form and the suffixed forms are counted, but the construct state עֲבוֹדַת is not..

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָא. זֶה הַדָּבָר אֵין כָּתוּב כָּאן. אֶלָּא אֵ֤לֶּה הַדְּבָרִ֔ים. דָּבָר דִּבְרֵי דְּבָרִים. מִכָּן לָאָבוֹת וּלְתוֹלְדוֹת. רִבִּי חֲנִינָא דְצִיפּוֹרִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אל״ף חַד. למ״ד תַּלְתִּין. ה״א חֲמִשָּׁה. דָּבָר חַד. דְּבָרִים תְּרֵי. מִיכָּן לְאַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת מְלָאכוֹת שֶׁכְּתוּבוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיסָרִין אָֽמְרִין. מִן אַתְרָהּ לָא חָֽסְרָה כְלוּם. א׳ חַד. ל׳ תַּלְתִּין. ח׳ תְּמַנְיָא. לֹא מִתְמַנְעִין רַבָּנִן דָּֽרְשִׁין בֵּין ה״א לְחי״ת. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it does not say “this is the word” but these are the words.¹⁰³Ex. 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 derivatives¹⁰⁴The plural indicates that each category stands for many different actions, Babli 70a, 97b. (In the Appendix to Yalqut Šimony 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 two¹⁰⁵The gematria (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 ¹⁰⁶Cf. Peah 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.

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׂ עָֽבְדִין הֲווֵיי בְהָדָא פִירְקָא תְּלַת שְׁנִין וּפְלוּג. אַפְקוֹן מִינֵּיהּ אַרְבָּעִין חָסֵר אַחַת תּוֹלְדוֹת עַל כָּל־חָדָא וְחָדָא. מַן דְּאַשְׁכְּחוֹן מִיסְמוֹךְ סָֽמְכִין. הָא דְלָא אַשְׁכְּחוֹן מִיסְמוֹךְ עַבְדּוּנֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם מַכֶּה בְפַטִּישׁ. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish worked on this Chapter for three and one half years¹⁰⁷They made a list of all actions traditionally forbidden on the Sabbath.. They produced 39 derivatives for each single one. Where they found a way to include it they included it¹⁰⁸Where they could they classified them according to the official categories.. Where they did not find a way to include it they classified it as “who hits with a hammer.^7,A name for the formal end of any production process.¹⁰⁹A catch-all category for actions difficult to categorize. It is clear that the list of prohibited actions must have preceded the classification.”

בְּנוֹי דְרִבִּי חִייָא רוֹבָא עָֽבְדָן הֲווֵיי בְהָדֵין פִירְקָא שִׁיתָא יַרְחִין. אַפְקוֹן מִינֵּיהּ שִׁית מִילִּין עַל כָּל־חָדָא וְחָדָא. בְּנוֹי דְרִבִּי חִייָא רוֹבָא הֲווֵיי בְשִׁיטַּת אֲבוּהוֹן. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָא. הַקּוֹצֵר הַבּוֹצֵר הַמּוֹסֵק הַגּוֹדֵד הַתּוֹלֵשׁ הָאוֹרֶה כּוּלְּהֹן מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי סִידוֹר. יְהוּדָה בְּרִבִּי עָֽבְדִין הֲווֵיי בְּמַכְשִׁירִין שִׁיתָא יַרְחִין. בְּסוֹפָא אֲתַא חַד תַּלְמִיד מִן דְּרִבִּי סִימַאי וּשְׁאִיל לֵיהּ וְלָא אַגִּיבֵיהּ. אָמַר. נִיכָּר הוּא זֶה שֶׁלֹּא עָבַר עַל פִּיתְחָהּ שֶׁלַּתּוֹרָה. 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 stated¹¹⁰Quoted again later in the discussion of Mishnah 2, after Note 267. The Babylonian version of this baraita 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.¹¹¹These are six actions classified under the same category. “Tearing out” refers among other things to tearing out hairs.” Rebbi Sidor¹¹²His name seems to have been Isidor; changed to avoid the mention of pagan deities. said, Jehudah the son of the rabbi¹¹³The Elder R. Ḥiyya. Makhširin 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. He¹¹⁴R. Simai’s student. The important one of R. Ḥiyya’s twins was Ḥizqiah, not Jehudah. said, it is recognizable that this one never passed by the gate of the Torah.

אַרְבָּעִים אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת חָסֵר אַחַת. לֵיידָה מִילָּה. שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָן כּוּלָּם בְּעֶלֶם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. “The categories of work are 39.” For which purpose? For if he did all of them in one oblivion he is liable only once¹¹⁵This 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.”.

תַּנָּא רִבִּי זַכַּאי קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. זִיבֵּחַ קִיטֵּר וְנִיסֵּךְ בְּעֶלֶם אֶחָד חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בַּבָלַייָא. עֲבַרְתְּ בָיָדָךְ תְּלָתָא נְהָרִין וְאִיתָבַּרְתְּ. אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. עַד לָא יַתְבְּרִינֵּיהּ בְּיָדֵיהּ יֵשׁ כָּאן אַחַת וְאֵין כָּאן הֵנָּה. מִן דְּתַבְרָהּ בְּיָדֵיהּ יֵשׁ כָּאן הֵנָּה וְאֵין כָּאן אַחַת. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בְּעָא קוֹמֵי דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. וִיהֵא חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. כְּמַה דְתֵימַר גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת. לֹא־תַֽעֲשֶׂ֨ה כָל־מְלָאכָ֜ה כְּלָל. לֹֽא־תְבַֽעֲר֣וּ אֵ֔שׁ בְּכֹ֖ל מֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם. פְּרָט. הֲלֹא הַבְעָרָה בִּכְלָל הָֽייְתָה וְיָצָאת מִן הַכְּלָל לְלַמֵּד. לוֹמַר. מַה הַבְעָרָה מְיוּחֶדֶת מַעֲשֶׂה יְחִידִי וְחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. אַף כָּל־מַעֲשֶׂה וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ לְחַייֵב עָלָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אַף הָכָא. לֹ֣א תָֽעָבְדֵ֑ם כְּלָל. לֹֽא־תִשְׁתַּֽחֲוֶ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם פְּרָט. וַהֲלֹא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה בִּכְלָל הָֽיְתָה וְלָמָּה יָצָאת מִן הַכְּלָל. לְלַמֵּד. מַה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה מְיוּחֶדֶת מַעֲשֶׂה יְחִידִי וְחַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. אַף כָּל־מַעֲשֶׂה וּמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ לְחַייֵב עָלָיו בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בַּשַּׁבָּת כְּלָל בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וּפְרָט בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. וּבָעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כְּלָל שֶׁהוּא בְצַד הַפְּרָט. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָכְתִיב לֹ֥א תִֽשְׁתַּֽחֲוֶה֭ לְאֵ֣ל אַחֵ֑ר זֹבֵ֥חַ לָאֱלֹקִים יָֽחֳרָ֑ם. הֲרֵי כְּלָל בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וּפְרָט בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁאַתְּ לוֹמֵד מִצִּדוֹ. אֲפִילוּ כְּלָל בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד [אֵי] אַתְּ לָמֵד. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרִין. לֹא שַׁנְייָא. בֵּין שֶׁכְּלָל בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד וּפְרָט בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר. בֵּין שֶׁכְּלָל וּפְרָט בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. בַּשַּׁבָּת כְּלָל וְאַחַר כָּךְ פְּרָט. בָּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פְּרָט וְאַחַר כָּךְ כְּלָל. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. לֹא שַׁנְייָא. בֵּין שֶׁכְּלָל וְאַחַר כָּךְ פְּרָט. בֵּין שֶׁפְּרָט וְאַחַר כָּךְ כְּלָל. בֵּין שֶׁכְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. בַּשַׁבָּת כְּלָל בָּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ וּפְרָט בָּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ. בָּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כְּלָל בָּעֲבוֹדָתָהּ וּפְרָט בִּמְלָאכוֹת הַגָּבוֹהַּ. ¹¹⁶This paragraph and the next are also in Nazir 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 he¹¹⁷The idol worshipper. not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work¹¹⁸Ex. 20:8., principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places¹¹⁹Ex. 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 guilty¹²⁰A 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 9^th 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 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 them¹²¹Ex. 20:4., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself¹²¹Ex. 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 guilty¹²⁰A 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 9^th 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 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 detail¹²²In the same sentence. Cf. Babli Pesaḥim 6b, Bava qamma 85a, Menaḥot 55b, Niddah 33a.. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power¹²³Ex. 34:14.? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned¹²⁴Ex. 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]¹²⁵Added from the text in Nazir, needed for an understanding of the text. infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar¹²⁶Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex. 20:5.. 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 principle¹²⁷If prostrating 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^th 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 Heaven¹²⁸The 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..

אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. הַבְעָרָה שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת. לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמָהּ. שֶׁאֵינַהּ מַעֲשֶׂה. אַתְיָא כְּהַהִיא דְתַנֵּי חִזְקִיָּה. זֹבֵ֥חַ לָאֱלֹקִים יָֽחֳרָ֑ם. יָצָתָה זְבִיחָה לְלַמֵּד עַל הַכֹּל. הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיָה לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמָהּ. שֶׁאֵינַהּ מַעֲשֶׂה. אוֹ חִלֻּף. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה מְלַמֵּד. וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵינוֹ מְלַמֵּד. דָּמַר רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הַבְעָרָה לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת. לְלַמֵּד עַל בַּתֵּי דִינִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ דָנִין בַּשַּׁבָּת. וּמַה טַעֲמָא. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן בְּכֹ֖ל מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וְהָי֙וּ אֵ֧לֶּה לְחַֻקּ֥ת מִשְׁפָּ֖ט לְדֹרֹֽתֵיכֶ֑ם בְּכֹ֖ל מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם: מַה מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בְּבָתֵּי דִינִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף מוֹשְׁבוֹתֵיכֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן בְּבָתֵּי דִינִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֶבְדּוּמָא. מִכֵּיוָן דְּתֵימַר. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת. כְּמִי שֶׁיָּצָא שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ. וְדָבָר שֶׁיָּצָא שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ מְלַמֵּד. Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily¹²⁹Since 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.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work¹³⁰Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances.. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned¹²⁴Ex. 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 everything¹³¹Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9^th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan., 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 Sabbath¹³²In the Babli, Yebamot 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 settlements¹³³Num. 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,¹³⁴Since the argument is based on Num. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9^th rule. and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs¹³⁵It 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..

הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. דָּבָר אֶחָד שֶׁיָּצָא לְצוֹרֶךְ אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק. וְשֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ חוֹלֵק. שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים שֶׁיָּֽצְאוּ מִן הַכְּלָל מָהוּ שֶׁיַּחֲלוֹקוּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. מְנַיִין הַמַּעֲלֶה מִבְּשַׂר חַטָּאת וּמִבְּשַׂר אָשָׁם וּמִבְּשַׂר קָדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים וּמִבְּשַׂר קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמוֹתָר הָעוֹמֶר וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים וּשְׁיֵרֵי מְנָחוֹת וּמִן הַשְּׂאוֹר וּמִן הַדְּבַשׁ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כִּ֤י כָל־שְׂאוֹר וְכָל־דְּבַ֔שׁ לֹֽא־תַקְטִ֧ירוּ מִמֶּ֛נּוּ אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַֽיי. הָא כָּל־שֶׁיֵּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ לָאִישִּׁים הֲרֵי הוּא בְּבַל תַקְטִּירוּ. This implies that one item which was mentioned separately by necessity does not divide¹³⁶Since we found a reason why the item was mentioned one cannot infer that it is established as a separate rule.. If it was mentioned not by necessity it divides¹³⁷It 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.. 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 offering¹³⁸For 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., or meat of a reparation offering, or meat of most holy offerings¹³⁹Most 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., or meat from simply holy offerings¹⁴⁰The family sacrifices, of which only blood and fat are given to the altar, Lev. Chapter 3., or the remainder of the ˋOmer¹⁴¹The 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. 23:10. or the Two Breads¹⁴²The 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. 23:17., or the Shew Bread¹⁴³Of which the incense is burned on the altar; the bread itself has to be eaten by the priests, Lev. 24:5–9., or remainders of cereal offerings¹⁴⁴To be eaten by the priests after a handful was burned on the altar, Lev. Chapter 2., or leaven¹⁴⁵This again refers to the Two Breads, the only leavened offering., or date honey¹⁴⁶Which as an offering of first fruits is consumed by the priest after being presented to the altar but not brought onto the altar. Deut. 26:2.? The verse says¹⁴⁷Lev. 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”¹⁴⁸If 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..

רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְיֵצְאוּ שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וִילַמְּדוּ עַל הַקֳּדָשִׁים לַכֶּבֶשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וּמְנַיִין לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׁ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְאֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֥חַ לֹא־יַֽעֲל֖וּ. יָכוֹל לָעֲבוֹדָה וְשֶׁלֹּא לָעֲבוֹדָה. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לְרֵ֥יחַ נִיחוֹחַ: לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא לָעֲבוֹדָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אוֹתָם מִיעוּט. אֵילּוּ חַייָבִין עֲלֵיהֶן לַכֶּבֶשׁ. וְאֵין שְׁאַר כָּל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים חַייָבִין עֲלֵיהֶן לַכֶּבֶשׁ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכָּתוּב אוֹתָם. הַא אֵינוֹ כָתוּב אוֹתָם מְלַמְּדִין. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים שֶׁיָּֽצְאוּ מִן הַכְּלָל אֵינָם חוֹלְקִין. אַמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִלֵּל. לַחֲלוֹק אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין. הָא לְלַמֵּד מְלַמְּדִין. Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp¹⁴⁹The ramp on which the priest ascends to the altar since it is forbidden to build steps to the altar (Ex. 20:22). The ramp was physically separated from the altar.? He told him, it follows what was stated, the altar¹⁵⁰Lev. 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 says¹⁵⁰Lev. 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 says¹⁵⁰Lev. 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 worship¹⁵¹Since 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 1(11).. (He retorted,)¹⁵²An 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 quoted. them is a restriction¹⁵³Anything other than leaven and date honey is not covered by the verse.. 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 instruct¹⁵⁴Then leaven and date honey would just be examples of items to be consumed by the priests.. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do (not)¹⁵⁵A correction by the scribe himself but in error as shown by the next paragraph. separate¹⁵⁶To 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).. Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct¹⁵⁷Since 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..

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן לֹא אָמַר כֵּן. אֶלָּא רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְיֵצְאוּ שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וִילַמְּדוּ עַל כָּל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים לַכֶּבֶשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אוֹתָם מִיעוּט. אֵילּוּ חַייָבִין עֲלֵיהֶן לַכֶּבֶשׁ. וְאֵין שְׁאַר כָּל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים חַייָבִין עֲלֵיהֶן לַכֶּבֶשׁ. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. דָּבָר אֶחָד שֶׁיָּצָא מִן הַכְּלָל לְצוֹרֶךְ אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק. וְשֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ חוֹלֵק. וּשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים שֶׁיָּֽצְאוּ מִן הַכְּלָל אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין. וּכְרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל חוֹלְקִין. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים שֶׁיָּֽצְאוּ מִן הַכְּלָל חוֹלְקִין. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. לֹ֥א תְנַֽחֲשׁ֖וּ וְלֹ֥א תְעוֹנֵֽנוּ׃ וַהֲלֹא הַנִּיחוּשׁ וְהָעִינּוּן בִּכְלָל הָיוּ. וְיָֽצְאוּ מִן הַכְּלָל לְחִילּוּק. 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 ramp¹⁴⁹The ramp on which the priest ascends to the altar since it is forbidden to build steps to the altar (Ex. 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 ramp¹⁵⁸But on the altar one is liable at least in violation of a positive commandment. Babli Menaḥot 37b/38a.. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides¹³⁵It 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.. 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 divide¹⁵⁹From here on and the next paragraphs there is a parallel (but not an exact copy) in Sanhedrin 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 spells¹⁶⁰Lev. 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 class¹⁶¹To use witchcraft is a capital crime (Mishnah Sanhedrin 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 case¹⁶²Hermeneutical 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..

כְּלָל בְּהִיכָּרֵת וּפְרָט בְּהִיכָּרֵת. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָֽמְרָה. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. דָּמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כִּ֚י כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵ֑לֶּה וְנִכְרְת֛וּ. אֲחוֹתוֹ בִכְלָל הָֽיְתָה וְיָצָאת מִן הַכְּלָל לְחִילּוּק עַל הַכְּלָל. הָתִיב רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וְהָֽכְתִיב וְעֶרְוַ֨ת אֲח֧וֹת אִמְּךָ֛ וַֽאֲח֥וֹת אָבִ֖יךָ לֹ֣א תְגַלֵּה֑ כִּ֧י אֶת־שְׁאֵירוֹ הֶֽעֱרָ֖ה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת לִידוֹן בָּעֲרָייָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָֽכְתִיב וְ֠אִ֠ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁכַּ֨ב אֶת־אִשָּׁ֜ה דָּוָ֗ה וְגִילָּה אֶת־עֶרְוָתָהּ֙ אֶת־מְקוֹרָהּ הֶֽעֱרָ֔ה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת לִידוֹן בָּהּ אֶת הַמְעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא מִשֵּׁם טוּמְאָה לֹא נַעֲשֶׂה בוֹ אֶת הַמְעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר. לְפוּם כָּךְ צָרַךְ מֵימַר. חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְהָֽכְתִיב וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר יִשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־דֹּ֣דָת֔וֹ עֶרְוַ֥ת דֹּד֭וֹ גִּלָּה֑. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת לִידוֹן בָּעֲרִירִי. וְהָֽכְתִיב וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִקַּ֛ח אֶת־אֵ֥שֶׁת אָחִ֖יו נִדָּ֣ה הִ֑וא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת לִידוֹן בָּעֲרִירִי. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. כָּל־הָהֵן דִּכְתִיב עֲרִירִ֥ים יִֽהְיֽוּ הַוְייָן בְּלֹא בָנִים. עֲרִירִ֥ים יָמוּתוּ קוֹבְרִין אֶת בְּנֵיהֶן. In general by extirpation, the separate case by extirpation²In error.; the word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that it is “general case and detail¹⁶²Hermeneutical 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.”, as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, since anybody who would perform any of these abomination s, they will be extirpated¹⁶³Lev. 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 class¹⁶⁴The sister is forbidden in Lev. 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 written¹⁶⁵Lev. 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”¹⁶⁶Lev. 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 written¹⁶⁷Lev. 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]¹⁶⁸The word was deleted by the corrector but it is necessary for the understanding of the text. Since in Lev. 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.)¹⁶⁹This seems to be extraneous to the discussion. However, since the statement is also found in the Genizah text of Sanhedrin, 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 written¹⁷⁰Lev. 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 written¹⁷¹Lev. 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 Yudan¹⁷²The Amora. His counterpart in the Babli is the third generation Amora Rabba (Rav Abba bar Naḥmani). The Babli (Yebamot 55a) applies both statements to both verses. said, where it is written childless they shall be¹⁷¹Lev. 20:21., they will be without children, childless they shall die¹⁷⁰Lev. 20:20., they bury their children.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. דּוֹדָתוֹ לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת. לְמָעֵט אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן דּוֹדָתוֹ. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן אֽוֹ־דוֹדוֹ א֤וֹ בֶן־דּוֹדוֹ יִגְאָלֶ֔נּוּ. מַה דּוֹדוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בַּאֲחִי אָבִיו מֵאָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף דּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמְרָה לְהַלּוֹן בְּאָחוֹת אָבִיו מֵאָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לְמֵידָה מִדּוֹדָתוֹ. מַה דּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמְרָה לְהַלָּן בְּאָחוֹת אָבִיו מֵאָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמְרָה כָאן בְּאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. עַד כְּדוֹן כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. דְּתַנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִקַּ֛ח אֶת־אֵ֥שֶׁת אָחִ֖יו נִדָּ֣ה הִ֑וא. מַה נִדָּה יֵשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ. אַף אֶשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו יֵשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ. יָצָאת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ. Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his maternal brother’s wife¹⁷⁴From punishment by loss of children (rejected in the Babli, Yebamot 55a).. It is said here his aunt, and it is said there¹⁷⁵Lev. 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 sister¹⁷⁶In Sanhedrin: 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 wife¹⁷⁷Who is forbidden in Lev. 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 there¹⁷⁸Lev. 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 niddah¹⁷⁹In 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. 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.¹⁸⁰The menstruating woman is 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 forbidden¹⁸¹But for whom no punishment is spelled out..

הָא רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַקְשֵׁי לָהּ. מְנָן תֵּיתִי לֵיהּ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. שְׁנֵי לָאוִין וְכָרֵת אֶחָד. לָאוִין חוֹלְקִין כְּרִיתוּת. וּמַה טַעֲמָא. עַל־בְּשַֹ֤ר אָדָם֙ לֹ֣א יִיסָ֔ךְ וּ֨בְמַתְכֻּנְתּ֔וֹ לֹ֥א תַֽעֲשׂ֖וּ כָּמוֹהוּ. וְכָתוּב אִ֚ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִרְקַ֣ח כָּמוֹהוּ וַֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר יִתֵּ֛ן מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַל־זָר֑ וְנִכְרַ֖ת מֵֽעַמָּֽיו׃ הֲרֵי יֵשׁ כָּאן שְׁנֵי לָאוִין וְכָרֵת אַחַת. לָאוִין חוֹלְקִין כְּרִיתוּת. מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בָּאֲנָשִׁים הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וּבָאת אֲחוֹתוֹ לְלַמֵּד עַל־כָּל הַנָּשִׁים. וְלֵית לֵיהּ לְרִבִּי אֶלִיעֶזֶר כֵּן. אִית לֵיהּ לֹ֥א תִקְרְב֖וּ. אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחַד הָאִשָּׁה. וּמָה עֲבַד לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. פָּתַר לָהּ וְאֵינוֹ מְחוּוָר. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. וְיֵצְאוּ שְׁלָמִים וִיחַלּוֹקוּ לָאוִין עַל כָּל־ הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְטוּמְאָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָֽצְאוּ. לְמָעֵט אֶת קָדְשֵׁי בֶדֶק הַבַּיִת לִמְעִילָה. שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ חַייָבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. וְלֹא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. קָדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ מִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִמְעִילָה. לְחַייֵב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. מַה שֶׁאין כֵּן בְּקָדְשֵׁי בֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵין מִצְטָֽרְפִין חוֹלְקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. וְכֵינִי. וִיחַלּוֹקוּ וְלֹא יִצְטָֽרְפוּ. But Rebbi Ismael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it¹⁸²This 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, 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 extirpation¹⁸³This 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.. What is the reason? ¹⁸⁴Ex. 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 extirpation¹⁸⁵A 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 14b.. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females¹⁸⁶While in the punishments listed in Lev. 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 near¹⁸⁷Lev. 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 clear¹⁸⁸Since 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., so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Zeˋira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity¹⁸⁹Impurity of well-being sacrifices, the only ones available to lay people, is treated at length in Lev. 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 larceny¹⁹⁰While misuse of all kinds of sancta 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 mushiness¹⁹¹Sacrificing with the intent of eating of the sacrificial meat out of its time and place., leftovers¹⁹²Eating of sacrificial meat after its allotted time., 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 impurity¹⁹³This shows that well-being and other sacrifices are equal in the hand of the Cohen, Mishnah Meˋilah 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 split¹⁹⁵Somebody committing simultaneous larceny involving gifts to the Temple and sacrifices has to atone separately for the two offenses.. Rebbi Ḥanina¹⁹⁶The Genizah text in Sanhedrin reads Ḥinena, preferable for chronological reasons. said, so it is. They split but do not combine¹⁹⁷R. Ḥanina’s statement is an assertion that the rules are 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..

כָּלַל בַּעֲשֵׂה וּפָרַט בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. מִּילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָֽמְרָה. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. לוֹקִין עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה בַשְּׁבִיעִית. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֵין לוֹקִין עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה בַשְּׁבִיעִית. וּמַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וְשָֽׁבְתָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ שַׁבָּת֭ לַֽיי כְּלָל. שָֽׂדְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תִזְרָ֔ע וְכַרְמְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תִזְמֹֽר פְּרָט. הַזֶּרַע וְהַזָּמִיר אַף הֵן בִּכְלָל הָיוּ. וְלָמָּה יָֽצְאוּ. לְהַקִּישׁ אֲלֵיהֶן. לוֹמַר לָךְ. מַה הַזֶּרַע וְהַזָּמִיר מְיוּחָדִין שֶׁהֵן עֲבוֹדָה בָאָרֶץ וּבְאִילָן. אַף אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא עֲבוֹדָה בָאָרֶץ וּבְאִילָן. מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים הֵן. וּשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים שֶׁיָּֽצְאוּ מִן הַכְּלָל אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין. וְלֵית לְרִבִּי אֶלִיעֶזֶר חוֹלְקִין. אִית לֵיהּ. לַחֲלוֹק אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין. הָא לְלַמֵּד מְלַמְּדִין. וְלֵית לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מְלַמְּדִין. שַׁנְייָא הִיא. שֶׁכָּלַל בַּעֲשֵׂה וּפָרַט בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וְאֵין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל עֲשֵׂה. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. וַעֲשֵׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וְאֵין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל עֲשֵׂה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא. מוּתָּר לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מָהוּ לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מְלַמְּדִין לְעִנְייָן אִיסּוּר. כֵּן לְעִנְייָן הֵיתֵר לֹא יְלַמְּדוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא קַרָתֵּגִינָאָה. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שֵׁ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ תִּזְרַ֣ע. וְלֹא בַשְּׁבִיעִית. שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִי֭ם תִּזְמֹ֣ר כַּרְמֶ֑ךָ. וְלֹא בַשְׁבִיעִית. כְּלָל. לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהוּא בָא מִכֹּחַ עֲשֵׂה הוּא עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ עֲשֵׂה אֵין בּוֹ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אוֹמֵר. עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה. וְלֵיידָא מִילָּה כְתִיב מָלֵא וְשָֽׁבְתָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ שַׁבָּת֭ לַֽיי. לְעִנְייָן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבּוֹ. 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 detail¹⁹⁸If a pentateuchal verse partially is an exhortation to action and partially a prohibition, it nevertheless forms a logical unit.. ¹⁹⁹From here to the end of the discussion there exists a parallel in Kilaim 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 Eternal²⁰⁰Lev. 25:2., a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune²⁰¹Lev. 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 divide²⁰²To require separate atonement if performed inadvertently.? 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 it^202*During the Sabbatical year.. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it^202*During the Sabbatical year.? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions²⁰³For 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.). 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 vineyard²⁰⁴Lev. 25:3., not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment²⁰⁵As such it is not sanctionable; cf. Sanhedrin 5:3, Note 73.. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment²⁰⁶He takes R. Eleazar literally at his word. If Lev. 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 Eternal²⁰⁰Lev. 25:2.? That is for the prohibition implied by it²⁰⁷This 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..

יָכוֹל יְהוּ לוֹקִין עַל הַתּוֹסֶפֶת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא. יָכוֹל יְהוּ לוֹקִין עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה בַשְּׂבִיעִית. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פָּתַר לָהּ מַתְנִיתָא יָכוֹל יְהוּ לוֹקִין עַל אִיסּוּר שְׁנֵי פְרָקִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. שֵׁ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ תִּזְרַ֣ע שָׂדֶ֔ךָ וְשֵׁ֥שׁ שָׁנִי֭ם תִּזְמוֹר כַּרְמֶ֑ךָ. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. שָֽׂדְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תִזְרָ֔ע וְכַרְמְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תִזְמֹֽר. מָאן דָּמַר שֵׁ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ תִּזְרַ֣ע שָׂדֶ֔ךָ וְשֵׁ֥שׁ שָׁנִי֭ם תִּזְמֹ֣ר כַּרְמֶ֑ךָ מְסַייֵעַ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּמָאן דָּמַר שָֽׂדְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תִזְרָ֔ע וְכַרְמְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תִזְמֹֽר מְסַייֵעַ לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא לְרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. הִשָּׁמֵר. בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. פֶּן. בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וְכָתוּב שָׁם֭ תַּֽעֲלֶ֣ה עוֹלוֹתֶיךָ וְשָׁ֣ם תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה. שָׁם֭ תַּֽעֲלֶ֣ה זוֹ הָעֲלִייָה. וְשָׁ֣ם תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה זוֹ שְׁחִיטָה וּזְרִיקָה. מָה הָעֲלִייָה שֶׁהִיא בַעֲשֵׂה הֲרֵי הוּא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. אַף שְׁחִיטָה וּזְרִיקָה שֶׁהֵן בַּעֲשֵׂה יְהוּ בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. בְּגִין דִּכְתִיב שָׁם֭ תַּֽעֲלֶ֣ה וְשָׁ֣ם תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה. הָא אִילּוּלֵֹא הֲוָה כָתוּב שָׁם֭ תַּֽעֲלֶ֣ה וְשָׁ֣ם תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה אֵין עֲשֵׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל עֲשֵׂה. מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר כְּמַה דְתֵימַר גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת חָפַר חָרַץ נָעַץ אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. וְדִכְווָתָהּ. שָׁחַט וְזָרַק וְהֶעֱלָה אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. לְפוּם כָּךְ צָרַךְ מֵימַר. חַייָב עַל־כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. I could think that they should be giving lashes for the addition²⁰⁸The 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 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 terms²⁰⁹Rabbinic 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 Ševiˋit 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 Eleazar²¹⁰As explained in the preceding paragraph..
A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar:²¹¹Sifry 70. Babli, Zebaḥim 106a. Beware of, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition²¹²This 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.. And it is written²¹³Deut. 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 prohibition²¹⁴A positive commandment to be performed at the Chosen Place and a prohibition everywhere else., 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 commandment²¹⁵As maintained by R. Joḥanan.. 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 offense²¹⁶The activities quoted here are all derivatives of ploughing (Babli 73b).. 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 action²¹⁷In the Babli, Zebaḥim 107b, according to one opinion this is R. Ismael’s position..

כָּל־הֵן דְּתַנִּינָן אָבוֹת יֵשׁ לָהֶן תּוֹלְדוֹת. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אַרְבַּע אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין. הַשּׁוֹר. זֶה הַקֶּרֶן. נְגִיחָה וּדְחִיפָה אָב. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. נָשַׁךְ רָבַץ בָּעַט תּוֹלְדוֹת לַקֶּרֶן. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. אֲבוֹת הַטּוּמְאָה הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְשִׁכְבַת זֶרַע. תּוֹלָדוֹת הַשֶּׁרֶץ אֵי זֶהוּ. רִבִּי יוּדָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי נָחוּם. מַדָּפוֹת. מָהוּ מַדָּפוֹת. מַגָּעוֹת. אַב הַטּוּמְאָה מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַכֹּל. ווְלַד הַטּוּמְאָה אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא אוֹכְלִין וּמַשְׁקִין וּכְלֵי חֶרֶשׂ. אוֹכְלִין וּמַשְׁקִין וּכְלֵי אֵינָן נַעֲשִׂין אַב הַטּוּמְאָה לְטַמֵּא. זִיבָה. וְהָכָא תַנִּינָן. אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת. חֲרִישָׁה אָב. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָה. חָפַר חָרַץ נָעַץ תּוֹלְדוֹת לַחֲרִישָׁה. Anywhere one stated categories there are derivatives. There, we have stated²¹⁸Mishnah Bava qamma 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 stated²¹⁹Mishnah Kelim 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? Touching²²⁰Both in Šabbat 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 vessels²²¹This 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 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]²²²Missing in the text but indicated by the construct state of the word כֶּלִי. vessels cannot become main categories of impurity to transmit impurity²²³This 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.. 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 ploughing²¹⁶The activities quoted here are all derivatives of ploughing (Babli 73b)..

כָּל־אֲבוֹת מְלָאכוֹת מִן הַמִּשְׁכָּן לָֽמְדוּ. מַה חֲרִישָׁה הָֽיְתָה בַמִּשְׁכָּן. שֶׁהָיוּ חוֹרְשִׁין לִיטַּע סַמְמָנִין. כַּמָּה יַחֲרוּשׁ וִיהֵא חַייָב. רִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה אָמַר. כְּדֵי לִיטַּע כְּרֵישָׂה. רִבִּי אָחָה בַּר רַב. כְּדֵי לִיטַּע זִכְרוּתָהּ שֶׁל חִיטָּה. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. זֶרַע קִשּׁוּאִין שְׁנַיִם חַייָב. זֶרַע דְּילוּעִים שְׁנַיִם. זֶרַע פּוֹל מִצְרִי שְׁנַיִם. תַּנֵּי. חִטִּים מָדִיּוֹת שְׁתַּיִם. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. חִיטִּין עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהֵן חֲבִיבוֹת עָשׁוּ אוֹתָן כִּשְׁאַר זֵירְעוֹנֵי גִינָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין. וְכָל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוֹא לַהֲנָײַת קַרְקַע חַייָב מִשּׁוּם חוֹרֵשׁ. הַחוֹפֵר. הָחוֹרֵץ. הָנּוֹעֵץ. הָמְדַייֵר. הַמְעַדֵּר. הַמְזַבֵּל. הַמְכַבֵּד. הַמְרַבֵּץ. הַמְפַעְפֵּעַ גּוּשִׁים. הַמַּבְרֶה בַּחֳרַשִׁים. הַמַּצִית אֶת הָאוּר בְּחִישַׁת קָנִים וּבְאֲגַם תְּמָרִים. וּכְרִבִּי זְעִירָא אַמָּת הַמַּיִים שֶׁהִיא מַכְשֶׁרֶת צְדָדֵיהָ לִזְרִיעָה. הַמְסַקֵּל. הַבּוֹנֶה מַדְרֵיגוּת. הַמְמַלֵּא אֶת הַנְּקָעִים שֶׁתַּחַת הַזְּתִים. וְהָעוֹשֶׂה עוּגִּיּוֹת לַגְפָנִים. וְכָל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוֹא לַהֲנָײַת קַרְקַע חַייָב מִשּׁוּם חוֹרֵשׁ. All categories of work they learned from the Tabernacle⁴As noted earlier, since the Sabbath prohibition is repeated at the start of the rules of building the Tabernacle, Ex. 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 dyestuff²²⁴To dye threads used to weave the gobelins of the Tabernacle and the priest’s garments.. 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. There²²⁵Mishnah 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 17:7)., we have stated: “Two green melon²²⁶This is Maimonides’s determination, cf. Kilaim 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 eaten²²⁵Mishnah 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 17:7).. For everything which improves the soil one is liable²²⁷According 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. because of ploughing: One who digs²²⁸A cistern or other storage facility., who cuts²²⁹A ditch (for irrigation or drainage)., who inserts²³⁰A spike or log in the ground, for making a fence., who deposits dung²³¹Leads his animal onto the property so they should fertilize it by their droppings., who hoes, who fertilizes, who sweeps²³²A dirt floor. As Or zaruaˋ Šabbat §55 notes, this disagrees with the Babli which restricts the category of ploughing to land which may be used for agriculture., who sprinkles²³²A dirt floor. As Or zaruaˋ Šabbat §55 notes, this disagrees with the Babli which restricts the category of ploughing to land which may be used for agriculture., who splits blocks²³³A block of earth which must be broken up before it can be sown., who clears forests, who sets fire to reed thickets²³⁴Also for clearing for agriculture. or palm swamps, and following Rebbi Zeˋira a water canal prepares its banks for sowing²³⁵Since the banks are watered automatically. Babli Moˋed qaṭan 2b in the name of Rabba (Abba bar Naḥmani, contemporary of R. Zeˋira)., who removes stones²³⁶To turn barren land into an agriculturally usable area., who builds terraces²³⁷On hill slopes., who fills the rifts under olive trees, and who makes depressions for vines²³⁸For watering the individual vines., and for anything which improves the soil one is liable because of ploughing.

רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמְבַשֵּׁל נְבֵילָה בְיוֹם טוֹב אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁהוּתָּר מִכְּלָל בִּישּׁוּל בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לוֹקֶה. שֶׁלֹּא הוּתָּר מִכְּלָל בִּישּׁוּל אֶלָּא לַאֲכִילָה בִּלְבַד. הָתִיב רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵעַתָּה הַחוֹרֵשׁ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁהוּתָּר מִכְּלָל חֲרִישָׁה בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. לֹא הוּתְרָה חֲרִישָׁה כְדַרְכָּהּ. רִבִּי שַׁמַּי אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יֹסֵה רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ צוֹרֶךְ בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁלְּדָבָר. קָם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה עִם רִבִּי אָחָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַתְּ אָֽמְרָת דָּא מִילְּתָא. וְלֹא כֵן אַמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה דְבַרִים מְקוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּמְחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלָּל. וְזֶה חַד מֵהֶם. נֵימַר כ״ג. אֶלָּא רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁנֵיהֶן אָֽמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. וְלָכֵן סָֽבְרִינָן מֵימַר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁנֵיהֶן אָֽמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. נֵימַר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁלָשְׁתָּן אָֽמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. אֶלָּא מִילִּין דִּצְרִיכִין לְרַבָּנִן פְּשִׁיטִין לְכוֹן. פְּשִׁיטִין לְרַבָּנִן. קָצַר לְצוֹרֶךְ עֲשָׂבִים חַייָב מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר וְאֵינוֹ חַייָב מִשּׁוֹם מְײַפֶּה אֶת הַקַּרְקַע. לָא צוֹרְכָה דְּלֹא קָצַר לְײַפּוֹת אֶת הַקַּרְקַע. מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַייָב מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר וּמִשּׁוֹם מְײַפֶּה אֶת הַקַּרְקַע. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הוּא. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִן מִכָּל־מָקוֹם הֲרֵי חָרַשׁ. מִכָּל־מָקוֹם הֲרֵי קָצַר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן מְסַייְעִין לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דָּמַר רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דָּג שֶׁסְּחָטוֹ. אִם לְגוּפוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה פָטוּר. אִם לְהוֹצִיא צִיר חַייָב. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא דָמַר. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִן מִכָּל־מָקוֹם הֲרֵי סָחַט. מִכָּל־מָקוֹם הֲרֵי הוֹצִיא צִיר. ²³⁹This paragraph also is in Beṣah 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 holiday²⁴⁰It is presumed that carcass meat, which is forbidden as human food, is not prepared as animal feed. For R. Joḥanan (Babli Beṣah 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 food²⁴¹He disputes that cooking be permitted for anything that is not food.. 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 holiday²⁴²This refers to Mishnah Beṣah 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 permitted²⁴³Since 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.. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this²⁴⁴Both the Houses of Shammai and of Hillel do permit to use a spade; they must hold that the intent determines liability. is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter²⁴⁵There is liability only if the prohibited action is the object of his intent, not a by-product. Cf. Chapter 2, Note 19.. 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 23²⁴⁶Since 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”.? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same²⁴⁷Mishnah Beṣah 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 same²⁴⁸Chapter 2, Note 19. Babli 31b.? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same²⁴⁹Then 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.? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]²⁵⁰The words in brackets are added from the text in Beṣah. “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 grasses²⁵¹He 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. 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 harvested²⁵²In the Babli, these rabbis are identified with R. Jehudah.. 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 fish²⁵³A pickled herring which may be eaten cold on the Sabbath. Babli 145a., 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 sauce²⁵⁴This 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.).

כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה מַבְחִיל אֶת הַפֵּירִי חַייָב מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ. הַנּוֹטֵעַ. הַמַּבְרִיךְ. הַמַּרְכִּיב. הַמְקַרְסֵם. הַמְזָרֵד. הַמְפַסֵּל. הַמְזָהֵם. הַמְפָרֵק. הַמְאַבֵּק. הַמְעַשֵּׁן. הַמְתַלֵּעַ. הַקּוֹטֵם. הַסָּךְ. וְהַמַּשְׁקֶה. וְהַמְנַקֵּב. וְהָעוֹשֶׂה בָתִּים. וְכָל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא לְהַבְחִיל אֶת הַפֵּירִי חַייָב מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ. For any activity which quickens a fruit to ripen one is liable because of sowing. One who plants, who sinks²⁵⁵He 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., who grafts, who prunes, who trains²⁵⁶He binds the branches to an espalier., who removes dead branches, who dirties²⁵⁷In modern terms, applying pesticide (Mishnah Ševiˋit 2:4)., who removes leaves, who dusts²⁵⁸This also is a way to combat insect infestations., who smokes²⁵⁹Either to smoke out worms and insects or to protect against cold spells., who removes worms, who sprinkles with ashes²⁵⁸This also is a way to combat insect infestations., who oils, who waters, who drills holes²⁶⁰Punctures unripe sycamore figs to let them ripen for human consumption., who makes houses²⁶¹No convincing explanation is available for this expression., and for anything which quickens a fruit to ripen one is liable because of sowing.

זְעוּרָא רַב חִייָה בַּר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם כָּהֲנָא. הַנּוֹטֵעַ בַּשַּׁבָּת חַייָב מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ. רִבִּי זְעוּרָא אָמַר. הַזּוֹמֵר כְּנוֹטֵעַ. נָטַע וְזָמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּכָהֲנָא חַייָב שְׁתַּײִם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָא אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לֹא הַזּוֹמֵר כְּנוֹטֵעַ. וְלָמָּה הַנּוֹטֵעַ כְּזוֹמֵר. הַכֹּל הָיָה בִכְלָל זְרִיעָה. וְיָֽצְאָה זְמִירָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמָהּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּצָת זְמִירָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמָהּ אַתְּ פּוֹטְרוֹ מִשֵּׁם זוֹרֵעַ. הֲוֵי. לֹא שַׁנְייָא. נָטַע וְזָמַר בַּשַּׁכָּת בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. ²⁶²This paragraph is also on Kilaim 8:1 (Notes 32–36, כ) and Sanhedrin 7:5 (Note 125, נ).[Rebbi]²⁶³Added from the parallel sources. Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana²⁶⁴Since 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.: 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 counts²⁶⁵In the interpretation of the Babli, 73b, and Moˋed 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 pruner²⁶⁶Pruning 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. 25:3.? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency²⁶⁷Following 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.. 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.

וְהַקּוֹצֵר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִייָא. הַקּוֹצֵר. הַבּוֹצֵר. הַמּוֹסֵק. הַגּוֹדֵד. הַתּוֹלֵשׁ. וְהָאוֹרֶה. כּוּלְּהֹן מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר. הָהֵן דְּגָזַז סְפוֹג גּוֹמִי קַרוֹלִין. חַייָב מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר וּמִשּׁוּם נוֹטֵעַ. הָהֵן דְּגָזַז כּוּסְבָּר כָּרָתִין כַּרַפְס גַּרְגָּר טְרִיקְסִימוֹן בְּשׁוּמִין נַעְנַע חַייָב מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר וּמִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הַנּוֹתֵן עֲצִיץ נָקוּב עַל גַּבֵּי עֲצִיץ נְקוּבָה חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשׁוּם קוֹצֵר וּמִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הַקּוֹצֵץ קוֹרַת שִׁקְמָה חַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשֵׁם שָׁלשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וְלֹא פְלִיגִין. הַקּוֹצְצָהּ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר וּמִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ. הַמּוֹחְקָהּ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מַכֶּה בְפַטִּישׁ. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין אָֽמְרִין. הָהֵן דְּצַייָד כַּווְרָא וְכָל־דָּבָר שֶׁאַתָּה מַבְדִּילוֹ מֵחַיּוֹתוֹ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר. “And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated¹¹⁰Quoted again later in the discussion of Mishnah 2, after Note 267. The Babylonian version of this baraita 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.¹¹¹These are six actions classified under the same category. “Tearing out” refers among other things to tearing out hairs.” One who cuts sponge²⁶⁵In the interpretation of the Babli, 73b, and Moˋed 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 corals²⁶⁶Pruning 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. 25:3. is liable for harvesting and planting²⁶⁷Following 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.. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket²⁶⁸Accadic gergirū, eruca sativa., endives²⁶⁹Greek τρώξιμος, -ον, “edible”; τά τρώξιμα “vegetables eaten raw”, in rabbinic sources traditionally used for endives., sesame²⁷⁰With the quote in Arukh, reading כשומין., mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing²⁷¹For garden vegetables, “sowing” is the appropriate word. The reason is the same as in the preceding case, Note 267.. 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 sowing²⁷²If 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.. 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 it²⁷³Sycamores 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.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they²⁷⁴The two statements in the name of R. Simeon ben Laqish are consistent with one another. do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes²⁷⁵This turns a tree into building material. it is liable for hitting with a hammer⁷A name for the formal end of any production process.. 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 harvesting²⁷⁶The action which qualifies as harvesting is removing the fish from the water. This applies also to fish already caught but kept in water..

וְהַמְעַמֵּר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר סֳסַרְטַאי בָעֵי. תּוֹלְדוֹת הָעִימּוּר אֵי זוֹ הִיא. רִבִּי יוּסֵי. שְׁמָעִית מִן דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. וְלֵית אֲנָא יְדַע מַה שְׁמָעִת. מַיי כְדוֹן. הָהֵן דְּכָתִית אוֹרֶז שְׂעָרִין חֲלִיקָה חַייָב מִשּׁוּם דָּשׁ. הָהֵן דִּשְׁטַח צָלִין צִימּוּקִין מסוסלה בּוּקֶלָּטָה חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מְעַמֵּר. כָּל־שֶׁהוּא נוֹגֵעַ בָּאוֹכֶל חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מְעַמֵּר. בַּקְּלִיפָּה מִשֵּׁם דָּשׁ. “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 Simeon²⁷⁷R. Simeon ben Laqish who earlier was reported to have established derivatives for all categories mentioned in the Mishnah. from Rebbi Aḥa, but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? One who pounds²⁷⁸To separate the grain from the shell. rice²⁷⁹Greel ὄρυζα, ἡ., barley, groats²⁸⁰Latin alica, -ae., is liable because of threshing. He who spreads out ṣeli figs²⁸¹He is spreading out fruit or food to dry. The translation of צלין as “figs for drying” is tentative, cf. Peah 7:4 Note 86., raisins, ²⁸²This 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.מסוסלה, bucellata²⁸³A kind of bread consisting only of crust; cf. Ḥallah 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 threshing²⁸⁴For consistency, probably one should read the sentence about threshing after the one about binding into sheaves..

הָדָא אִיתְּתָא כַד מְעָֽרְבָא בְחִיטַּיָּא. מִשֵּׁם מְרַקְּדָה. כַּד מַפְרְכַייָא בְרָאשַׁייָא. מִשֵּׁם דָּשָׁה. כַּד מַתְבְּרָא בִּצְדָדַיָּא. מִשֵּׁם בּוֹרֶרֶת. כַּד מְסַפְייָא. מִשֵׁם טוֹחֶנֶת. כַּד מְנַפְייָא. מִשֵׁם זוֹרָה. גָּֽמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּהּ. מִשֵּׁם מַכָּה בְפַטִּישׁ. A woman if she mixes wheat²⁸⁵If 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., because she is sifting; if she breaks the tips²⁸⁶Of whole grains. The outer shells will fall off; this is threshing., because she is threshing; if she breaks the sides²⁸⁷She takes the grain out of the peel., 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 hammer²⁸⁸In contrast to the Babli, the Yerushalmi admits a liability for “hitting with a hammer” for completing professional work even for the preparation of food..

הָהֵן כִּיתַנַּייָא בְקוֹפָּנָה. מִשֵּׁם דָּשׁ. בְּמַעֲרוֹבָה. מִשֵׁם טוֹחֵן. בְּאַפְּסְטִיתָא. מִשֵׁם זוֹרֶה. בְּכַף. מִשּׁוּם בּוֹרֵר. כַּד מְפַלֵּג. מִשֵּׁם מְנַפֵּס. כַּד מְתַלֵּשׁ. מִשֵּׁם מְחַתֵּךְ. גָּמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ. מִשֵּׁם מַכֶּה בְפַטִּישׁ. This linen weaver with a mallet²⁸⁹Greek κόπανον, τό “pestle”. because of threshing; with a roller because of grinding; with a winnowing shovel²⁹⁰Reading מערוכה for מערובה “mixer”. because of winnowing; with a spoon because of selecting; if he splits because of using a hatchet; if he tears out²⁹¹Cutting linen thread, not plucking flax plants. because of cutting; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

הָהֵן דִּשְׁחַק תּוּמָא. כַּד מַפְרֵךְ בְּרֵישַׁייָא. מִשּׁוּם דָּשׁ. כַּד מַבְחַר בְּקִלּוּפִּייָתָה. מִשּׁוּם בּוֹרֵר. כַּד שְׁחִיק בִּמְדוֹכְתָה. מִשּׂוּם טוֹחֵן. כַּד יְהִיב מַשְׁקִין. מִשּׁוּם לָשׁ. גָּמַר מְלַאכְתָּן. מִשּׁוּם מַכֶּה בְפַטִּישׁ. 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.

הָהֵן סִיקוֹרָה. כַּד מְכַחֵד בִּגְרִירָה בְּקְלּוּפִּיָתֵיהּ. מִשּׁוּם בּוֹרֵר. כַּד מְכַתֵּת בְּמַרְגָּזִייֵהּ. מִשּׁוּם דָּשׁ. כַּד שְׁחִיק בִּמְדוֹכְתֵיהּ. מִשּׂוּם טוֹחֵן. כַּד יְהִיב מַשְׁקִין. מִשּׁוּם לָשׁ. כַּד מְשַׁקֵּעַ בְּאַנְטְרִין. מִשּׁוּם בוֹנֶה. כַּד מְקַטֵּעַ בְּגוֹמָא. מִשֵּׁם מְחַתֵּךְ. גָּמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ. מִשֵּׁם מַכֶּה בְפַטִּישׁ. This sausage maker²⁹²The word appears only here and in Beṣah 4:4. The translation follows Meïri in his Commentary to Babli Beṣah 32a, accepted by S. Liebermann., if he selects²⁹³Reading מבחר for מכחד. 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 hollow²⁹⁴Latin antrum, -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.

רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דָּגִים שֶׁסְּחָטָן. אִם לְגוּפָן פָּטוּר. אִם לְהוֹצִיא צִיר חַייָב. רַבא אָמַר. כְּבָשִׁים שֶׁסְּחָטָן. אִם לְגוּפָן מוּתָּר. וְאִם לְמֵימֵיהֶן אָסוּר. שְׁלָקוֹת בֵּין לְגוּפָן בֵּין לְמֵימֵיהֶן אָסוּר. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. אֶחָד כְּבָשִׁים וְאֶחָד שְׁלָקוֹת בֵּין לְגוּפָן בֵּין לְמֵימֵיהֶן אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. הָדָא דְרַב פְּלִיגָא עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא. לָמָּה. דְּהָהֵן אָמַר אָסוּר וּמוּתָּר. דְּהָהֵן אָמַר חַייָב וּפָטוּר. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed fish²⁵³A pickled herring which may be eaten cold on the Sabbath. Babli 145a., if for their body he is not liable, but to produce fish sauce he is liable. Rav²⁹⁵As the sequel shows, one has to read רב for רבא. said, if one compressed pickles²⁹⁶Vegetables or fruits preserved in vinegar without cooking., if for their body it is permitted, for their fluid it is forbidden²⁹⁷The 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.. Preserves²⁹⁸Preserved by cooking for an extended time. both for their body or their fluid is forbidden²⁹⁹In the Babli 145a: “permitted”.. 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 liable³⁰⁰R. 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..

אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל. בָּצָל שֶׁרִיסְּקוֹ. אִם לִיתֵּן טַעַם אָסוּר. אִם לְהוֹצִיא שׂוֹרְפוֹ מוּתָּר. רִבִּי זְעוֹרָא בְשֵׁם רַב הוּנָא. צְנוֹן טוֹמְנוֹ בַמֶּלַח. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֵא. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב הוּנָא. כֵּילָיו מִבֵּית הָאוּמָּן לוֹבְשָׁן. וְאִם יִתְקְרַע יִתְקְרַע. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב הוּנָא. נִסְתַּבְּכוּ בְגָדָיו בְּקוֹצִים הֲרֵי זֶה מְפַשְּׁרָן בְּמָקוֹם צִינְעָה וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרַע. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב הוּנָא. נָטַל טִיט עַל בְּגָדָיו הֲרֵי זֶה מְמָֽרְחוֹ בְיָדוֹ אַחַת. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְכַסְכֵּס. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַב הוּנָא. הָהֵן נִנְעָה. בְּחָדָא שָׁרֵי וּבִתְלַת אָסוּר. וּבְתַרָתֵּיי צְרִיכָא. הָהֵן דִּסְחִי. רַב הוּנָא וְרַב יְהוֹדָה. חַד אָמַר הָכֵין שָׁרִי וְהָכֵין אָסוּר. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. בֵּין הָכֵין וּבֵין הָכֵין אָסוּר. רִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר זְמִינָא עָאַל מִיסְחֵי עִם רִבִּי זְעִירָא. וְלָא שָֽׁבְקֵיהּ עֲבַד דְּלָא הָכֵין וּדְּלָא הָכֵין. 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 permitted³⁰¹In 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.. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: One may hide a radish in salt on condition not to leave it there³⁰²It cannot stay until after the Sabbath since one may not prepare from the Sabbath for a weekday. Cf. Babli 108b.. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Huna: [If there came]³⁰³The addition is from the quote of the sentence in Meïri ad 73b. his clothes from the tailor he may wear them; if they tore³⁰⁴Tosephta Eruvin 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 tear³⁰⁴Tosephta Eruvin 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]³⁰⁵Reading נפל for נטל. 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 questionable³⁰⁶In 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).. One who bathes, Rav Huna and Rav Jehudah. One said, so it is permitted and so it is forbidden³⁰⁷It 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.. 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.

נָֽפְלוּ מַיִם עַל בְּגָדָיו. רַב הוּנָא וְרַב יִרְמְיָה. חַד אָמַר מְנַעֲרָהּ שָׁרִי. וּמְמַחְקָהּ אָסוּר. וְחָרָנָה מַחְלִף. 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 switches³⁰⁸The problem is that it may wash the garment; cf. Babli 147a line 1 ff..

רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִייָא בַּר אַשִּׁי. זֶה שֶׁרוֹקֵק מַבְלִיעוֹ בִכְסוּתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. רִבִּי בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִייָא בַּר אַשִּׁי. אִתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי חִייָה רוֹבָא וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרִבִּי. חַד אָמַר. רוֹקֵק וְשָׁף. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. אֵינוֹ רוֹקֵק וְשָׁף. מַה פְלִיגִין. בּשֶׁאֵין שָׁם פְּסֵיפָס. אֲבַל יֵשׁ שָׁם פְּסֵיפָס רוֹקֵק וְשָׁף. רָקַק וְהִפְרִיחָתוֹ הָרוּחַ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֶה. וְכָל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מְחוּסַּר לָרוּחַ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֶה. Rebbi Abba (bar)³⁰⁹Read: R. Abba in the name of R. Ḥiyya bar Ashi, as in the next sentence. Ḥiyya bar Ashi, one who spits absorbs it in his garment and does not worry³¹⁰He puts his shoe on the spittle and crushes it. This is a problem on a dirt floor. Babli 121b.. 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 floor³¹¹Greek ψῆφος, ἡ, “pebble, mosaic stone”, meaning a stone floor.. 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 wind³¹²Since 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 60a, Bava batra 26a. one is liable because of winnowing.

וְהַבּוֹרֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. יֵשׁ שֶׁהוּא בוֹרֵר צְרוֹרוֹת כָּל־הַיּוֹם וְאֵינוֹ מִתְחַייֵב. יֵשׁ שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת וּמִיָּד מִתְחַייֵב. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָה. הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי כְרִי וּבָרַר צְרוֹרוֹת כָּל־הַיּוֹם אֵינוֹ מִתְחַייֵב. נָטַל לְתוֹךְ יָדוֹ כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת וּבִירֵר חַייָב. “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 liability³¹³Since 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.; if he took in his hand the volume of a dried fig and picked out he is liable.

רִבִּי יוֹנָה בָעֵי. עָשָׂה כֵן בַּשַּׁבָּת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַייָב. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. וְלָמָּה לֹא. אִילּוּ עָשָׂה כֵן בַּשַּׁבָּת עַל דְּבֵית הִלֵּל שֶׁמָּא אֵינוֹ חַייָב. וְהָכָא חַייָב. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אֲבָה. לֹא אַתְיָא אֶלָּא עַל דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. לָמָּה. שֶׁהוּתָּר מִכְּלַל בְּרֵירָה בְיוֹם טוֹב. לֹא הוּתָּר מִכְּלַל בְּרֵירָה בַּשַּׁבָּת. ³¹⁴This and the following paragraphs are from Beṣah 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 Sabbath³¹⁵The 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..

בִּירֵר אוֹכְלִים מִתּוֹךְ אוֹכְלִים. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. חַייָב. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. פָּטוּר. מַתְנִיתָה פְלִיגָה עַל חִזְקִיָּה. דְּאָמַר. בּוֹרֵר וְאוֹכֵל בּוֹרֵר וּמַנִּיחַ עַל הַשּׁוּלְחָן. רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹרְחִין אוֹכְלִין רִאשׁוֹנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. וְהָתַנֵּי. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יָבוֹר אֶת כָּל־אוֹתוֹ הַמִּין. אִם עָשָׂה כֵן בַּשַּׁבָּת חַייָב. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה. שֶׁכֵּן הַבּוֹרֵר כְּדַרְכּוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת חַייָב. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שֶׁכֵּן הַבּוֹרֵר כְּדַרְכּוֹ בְמָקוֹם אֶחָד חַייָב. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה. אֲפִילוּ עִיגּוּלִין מִן גַּוְא עִיגּוּלִין. אֲפִילוּ רִימּוֹנִים מִן גַּוְא רִימּוֹנִים. אוֹ כֵינִי. אֲפִילוּ בְּנֵי נַשׁ מִן גַּו בְּנֵי נַשׁ. מַיי כְדוֹן. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי לְהָדָא דְרִבִּי אִימִּי. דְרִבִּי אִימִּי הֲוָה לֵיהּ אוֹרְחִין. אַפִּיק קוֹמֵיהוֹן תּוּרְמוֹסִין וּפַסִילִייָן. אֲמַר לוֹן. הָבוֹן דַּעְתֵּיכוֹן דַּאֲתוֹן מֵיכוֹל קִינְסָייָא בְסוֹפָא. ³¹⁶Here starts a new Genizah fragment (G) edited by L. Ginzberg, p. 84.
The paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, 74a/b. If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable³¹⁷It 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.. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table³¹⁸For immediate consumption. There is no difference whether one puts food in his own mouth or in others’.. 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)³¹⁹To be deleted with the other two sources. on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at (one) [another]³²⁰The 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. 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 rings³²¹String figs from a heap of string figs., even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people³²²Then it would be forbidden on the Sabbath to call people to read the Torah unless they had been selected beforehand. This we never heard.? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines³²³Greek θέρμος, ὁ. and beans³²⁴Greek φάσηλος, ὁ.. He told them, be careful to eat (the wood-chips)(the sticks) [the artichokes]³²⁵The first alternative is the conjectured meaning of the word in the Leiden text in Šabbat, 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.

וְהַטּוֹחֵן. הָהֵן דִּשְׁחַק מֶלַח חֲסַף פִּילְפְּלִין חַייָב מִשּׁוּם טוֹחֵן. הָהֵן דִּחְשַׁר גִּיר גִּבְּסִין מוֹץ חוֹל עָפָר חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מְרַקֵּד. הָהֵן דִּגְבַל גִּיר גִּבְּסִין עָפָר קִילוֹרִין מָלוּגְמַא סַמְמָנִין חַייָב מַשּׁוּם לָשׁ. הַלָּשׁ וְהַמְקַטֵּף וְהָעוֹרֵךְ כּוּלְּהוֹן מִשּׁוּם לָשׁ. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל בָּעֵי. תַּמָּן אַתְּ אָמַר. וְחַייָב עַל לִישָׁתָהּ וְעַל עֲרִיכָתָהּ וְעַל אֲפִייָתָהּ: וְהָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אֶלָּא תַמָּן יֵשׁ לוֹ לַחֲלוֹק. חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. בְּרַם הָכָא אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אַתְּ חֲמִי אֲפִייָה תוֹלְדַת לְבִישּׁוּל וְאַתְּ אָמַר הָכֵין. אֶלָּא בְּגִין דְּתַנִּינָן סֶדֶר עִיסָּה תְּנִינָתָהּ עִמָּהֶן. “And who grinds.” He who pulverizes salt, clay shards, peppers, is liable because of grinding. He who cuts into little pieces chalk, gypsum³⁴³Greek γύψος, ἡ., chaff, sand, dirt, is liable because of sifting. He who kneads chalk, gypsum, dust, eye-salve³⁴⁴Greek κολλύριον, τό., plaster³⁴⁵Greek μάλαγμα, -ατος, τό., 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, there³⁴⁶Mishnah Menaḥot 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 here³⁴⁷For the rules of the Sabbath, kneading the dough and forming it into the required shape count only as one liability. 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 dough³⁴⁸In 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..

הָהֵן דְּאַזִּין גִּיר קַרָדִין מְשִׁיח כילוס שָׁרֵי זִיפּוֹת שָׁרֵי מוסרין. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בַּר חֲנִינָה. הַמַּתִּיךְ אֵבֶר חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מְבַשֵּׁל. הַצּוֹלֶה וְהַמְטַגֵּן הַשׁוֹלֵק וְהַמְעַשֵּׁן כּוּלְּהֹן מִשּׁוּם מְבַשֵּׁל. בִּישֵּׁל בַּחַמֵּי טִיבֵּרִיָּא מָהוּ. חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר. אָסוּר. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מוּתָּר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. אָֽזְלִית לְקַיְסָרִין וּשְׁמַעִית רִבִּי זְרִיקָן בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה. לְחִזְקִיָּה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ פֶּסַח שֶׁנִּתְבַּשֵּׁל בַּחַמֵּי טִיבֵּרִיָּא מָהוּ. תְּרֵין אֲמוֹרִין. חַד אָמַר. אָסוּר. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. מוּתָּר. מָאן דָּמַר. אָסוּר. אַל־תֹּֽאכְל֤וּ מִמֶּ֨נּוּ֙ נָ֔א וּבָשֵׁ֥ל מְבוּשָּׁל בַּמָּ֑יִם. וּמָאן דָּמַר. מוּתָּר. כִּ֣י אִם־צְלִי־אֵ֔שׁ רֹאשׁ֥וֹ עַל־כְּרָעָ֖יו וְעַל־קִרְבּֽוֹ׃ He who burns potter’s³⁵⁰Reading קדר “potter” for unexplained קרד. clay, softens glass³⁵¹Following G, reading Greek βῶλος, ἡ, “lump, clod”., melts pitch, melts ³⁵²This 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.).מוסרין. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: One who melts down lead is liable because of cooking³⁵³Babli 106a, Yebamot 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, what³⁵⁴Cooking in hot springs may be forbidden rabbinically; it cannot cause liability. Babli 40b.? 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 Tiberias³⁵⁵The 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.? 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 water³⁵⁶Ex. 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 innards³⁵⁷The second part of the verse validates it if the formal preparation was roasting over an open fire..

כָּל־אִילֵּין שִׁיעוּרַיָּא. אִם לְאוֹכְלִין. כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת. אִם לִבְהֵמָה. כִּמְלוֹא פִי גְדִי. אִם לְבַשֵּׁל. כְּדֵי לְבַשֵׁל בֵּיצָה קַלָּה. [ ] אִם לֶאֱרוֹג. כִּמְלוֹא רוֹחַב הַסִּיט כָּפוּל. אִם לִטְווֹת. כִּמְלוֹא רוֹחַב הַסִּיט כָּפוּל. All these measures³⁵⁸The general principle underlying the minimal amounts which create liability as explained in the later Mishnaiot of this Chapter and the following Chapters., 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 egg³⁵⁹A chicken egg., [ ]³⁶⁰In the Leiden ms. there is no lacuna here, but in G one reads … לתבל ביצ ..… This supports the reading in Or 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 siṭ³⁶¹Both 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, 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.

הַגּוֹזֵז אֶת הַצֶּמֶר. גָּזַז סְתָם מָהוּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הוֹצִיא דְיֹוֹ. אִם בְּקוֹלְמוֹס. כְּדֵי לִכְתּוֹב שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת. אִם לְהַגִּיהַּ. כְּדֵי לַהֲגוֹת אוֹת אַחַת. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר עוֹשֶׂה מָקוֹם לָקוֹפִיץ מִכָּן וּמִכָּן וְתוֹלֵשׁ הַשִּיעֵר. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְזִיזֶנּוּ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ. וְכֵן הַתּוֹלֵשׁ אֶת הַשִּיעֵר לִרְאוֹת מְקוֹם מוּם: רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הַתּוֹלֵשׁ מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים פָּטוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּאִיתָפַּלְּגוֹן. הַתּוֹלֵשׁ בַּקֳּדָשִׁים. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. חַייָב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּטוּר. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בָעֵי. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. דְּאִיתָפַּלְּגוֹן. הַתּוֹלֵשׁ כְּנַף בָּעוֹף. הַמּוֹרְטָהּ וְהַקּוֹטְמָהּ. חַייָב מִשֵׁם שָׁלֹשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וְלֹא פְלִיגִין. הַתּוֹלֵשׁ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם גוֹזֵז. הַמּוֹרְטָהּ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מוֹחֵק. הַקּוֹטְמָהּ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מַכֶּה בְפַטִּישׁ. וְלָא דַמְייָא. עוֹף שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גִיזָה. תְּלִישָׁתָהּ הִיא גִיזָתָהּ. בְּרַם הָכָא אֵינוֹ חַייָב עַד שֶׁיִּגָּזֵז. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן. דְּתַנֵּי. תָּלַשׁ מִן הַמֵּיתָה חַייָב. תְּלִישָׁתָהּ זוֹ הִיא גִיזָתָהּ. “He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification,³⁶¹Both 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, 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 reed³⁶²Greek κάλαμος, -ου, m., Latin calamus,- i, m., in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter³⁶³Writing 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.. There, we have stated³⁶⁴Mishnah Bekhorot 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 defect³⁶⁵Which would make the firstling secular property of the Cohen, (Deut. 15:20)..” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable³⁶⁶As the Sabbath is concerned, this is unprofessional and therefore does not create liability while still being forbidden.. 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 liable³⁶⁷As illegitimate use of dedicated property.; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed³⁶⁸The previously recorded disagreement with R. Joḥanan has to be reconciled with the generally accepted Tosephta which follows.. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].³⁶⁹Tosephta 9:20.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they³⁷⁰The 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. 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 shearing³⁷¹Babli Bekhorot 25a.. But here³⁷²In the case of the four-legged animal. 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.

הַמְלַבְּנוֹ הָהֵן דִּמְגַפֵּר עָא לְמָנִין נחֲבָלִין אֶלִיקָה. הָדָא אִיתָּתָא דְּשָֽׁרְקָה אַפָּהּ דְּשָֽׁרְקָה מָעַזְלָהּ. הָהֵן חַייְטְא דִּיהַב חוּטָא גָּו פּוּמֵיהּ. רַב כֹּהֵן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין. הָמִײַנְטוֹן חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מְלַבֵּן. “Who bleaches it.” He who impregnates wood for vessels and ropes for a windlass³⁷³For 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).. This woman who painted her face red³⁷⁴In the Babli 95a this is characterized as R. Eliezer’s opinion and is not practice since it is only temporary painting. and painted her spindle red³⁷⁵As 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 68 (but he reads, “she paints her coat red”.. This tailor who took a thread into his mouth³⁷⁶The commentaries explain that he does this to bleach the thread.. Rav Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Asbestos³⁷⁷Greek ἀμίαντος, -ον, “pure” (adj.); ὁ ἀμίαντος λίθος, Latin amiantus “asbestos”. There is bleaching and dying for mineral material. is liable because of bleaching.

הַמְנַפְּסוֹ. הָהֵן דְּנַפִּיס סִיב הוּצִּין גוֹמָא חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מְנַפֵּס. “Who cards it.” He who cards date palm fiber, papyrus, is liable because of carding³⁷⁸Even though these are not textiles. Date palm fiber is lifa in Arabic..

הַצּוֹבְעוֹ. מַה צְבִיעָה הָֽיְתָה בַמִּשְׁכָּן. שֶׁהָיוּ מְשַׁרְבָּטִין בַּבְּהֵמָה בְּעוֹרוֹת אֵלִים מְאָדָּמִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. הָעוֹשֶׂה חַבּוּרָה וְנִצְרַר בָּהּ דָּם חַייָב. הַמְאַדֵּם אוֹדֶם בַּשָׂפָה חַייָב. הַמּוֹצִיא דָּם חַייָב מִשּׁוּם נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם. הַצָּר צוּרָה. הָרִאשׁוֹן חַייָב מִשּׁוּם כּוֹתֵב וְהַשֵּׁינִי חַייָב מִשּׁוּם צוֹבֵעַ. חִיסֵּר בָּהּ אֶבֶר וּבָא אַחֵר וּגְמָרָהּ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מַכֶּה בַפַּטִּישׁ. וְהַסּוֹחֵט וְהַמְכַבֵּס מְלָאכָה אַחַת הִיא. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁלְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר. הַצַּבָּעִים שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין סְחִיטָה מְלָאכָה בִפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁלְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אַרְבָּעִים מְלָאכוֹת אִינּוּן. וְנִיתְנֵי. לֹא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא מִילִּין דְּכָל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵײ בָּהֶן. “Who dyes it.” What kind of dying was in the Tabernacle? They were clobbering an animal for red skins of rams³⁷⁹Ex. 25:5, 26:14.. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that he is liable who causes a wound which results in echymosis³⁸⁰If the blue spot stays blue more than 24 hours.. He who colors his lips red is liable³⁷⁴In the Babli 95a this is characterized as R. Eliezer’s opinion and is not practice since it is only temporary painting.. He who causes bleeding, because of taking away life force at that place³⁸¹Lev. 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 dying³⁸²Assuming 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”.. If he left out a limb and another came and finished it, he is liable because of hitting with a hammer⁷A name for the formal end of any production process.. 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 work³⁸³Since it is not listed separately in the Mishnah.. Should we state this? We come to state only items to which everybody agrees.

הָהֵן דַּעֲבַד חֲבָלִין. הָהֵן דַּעֲבַד מִמְזוֹר חַייָב מִשּׁוּם טוֹוֶה. הָהֵן דַּעֲבַד קוֹנְטְרָן נָפָן מַחֲצָלָן חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מֵיסֵיךְ. הָדָא אִיתְּתָא כַּד מִשְׁתַּייָא בְקוֹבָיָה. מִשּׁוּם מֵיסֶכֶת. כַּד יְהָבָה קדמה. מִשּׁוּם עוֹשָׂה בָתִּין. כַּד מְקִימָה לוֹן. מַשּׁוּם בּוֹנָה. כַּד מְחַייָא. מִשּׁוּם אוֹרֶגֶת. כַּד מִקְטְעָא בְנֵימַייָא. מִשּׂוּם מְחַתֶּכֶת. כַּד גָּֽמְרָה מְלַאכְתָּהּ. מַשּׁוּם מַכָּה בְפַטִּישׁ. הָהֵן דַּעֲבַד קוּפִּין. כַּד צְפַר. מִשּׁוּם מֵיסֵיךְ. כַּד מְחַייֵט. מִשּׁוּם תּוֹפֵר. כַּף. מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. כַּד מְקַטֵּעַ. מִשּׁוּם מְחַתֵּךְ. גָּמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ. מִשּׁוּם מַכֶּה בְפַטִּישׁ. הָהֵן דַּעֲבַד מַלִּין עַרְסְווָן. לְאוֹרֶךְ. מִשּׁוּם מֵסֵיךְ. לְרוֹחָב. מִשּׁוּם אוֹרֵג. קַנְקֶלַּטוֹן. מִשּׁוּם עוֹשֶׂה בָתִּים. כַּד מְקַטֵּעַ. מִשּׁוּם מְחַתֵּךְ. גָּמַר מְלַאכְתּוֹ. מִשּׁוּם מַכֶּה בְפַטִּישׁ. שְׁנֵי נִירִין בְּחָף אֶחָד וּשְׁנֵי חָפִין בְּנִיר אֶחָד. One who makes ropes. The one who twines them is liable because of spinning³⁸⁴The Babli 95a rules that braiding women’s hair is building.. One who makes basket work of reeds³⁸⁵The translation follows Levy; it is tentative., sieves, bast mats, is liable because of weaving. A woman when she prepares the loom, because of preparing. When she fastens the web,³⁸⁶The 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”. because of tying threads. When she erects [the loom], because of building. When she hits³⁸⁷She pushes down the threads of the woof; this is the essence of weaving., 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 tailors³⁸⁸This is the only occurrence of חײט used as a verb. G reads “acting as cutter”, cf. شرط “to cut, to tear”., 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-sheets³⁸⁹A conjectured meaning of מלין ערסװן “contents of beds”. Or zaruaˋ 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 thread³⁹⁰The pegs are on top and bottom of the loom, holding the threads of the warp..

הָאוֹרֵג שְׁנֵי חוּטִין וְהַפּוֹצֵעַ שְׁנֵי חוּטִין הַקּוֹשֵׁר וְהַמַּתִּיר. מַה קְשִׁירָה הָֽיְתָה בַמִּשְׁכָּן. שֶׁהָיוּ קוֹשְׁרִין אֶת הַמֵּיתָרִים. וְלֹא לְשָׁעָה הָֽיְתָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהָיוּ חוֹנִין וְנוֹסְעִין עַל פִּי הַדִּיבֵּר כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא לְשָׁעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִבְטִיחָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁהוּא מַכְנִיסָן לָאָרֶץ כְּמִי שֶׁהִיא לְשָׁעָה. אָמַר רִבִּי פִינְחָס. מִתּוֹפְרֵי יְרִיעוֹת לָֽמְדוּ. נִפְסַק. הָיָה קוֹשְׁרוֹ. חָזַר וְנִפְסַק. לַעֲשׂוֹתָן קְשָׁרִים קְשָׁרִים אֵי אֶיפְשַׁר. אֶלָּא חוֹזֵר וּמַתִּיר אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. הָהֵן חַייָטָא אומָנָא מְבַלֵּעַ תְּרֵין רָאשֶׁיהָ. וְהַייְדְא אָֽמְרָה דָא. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי חֲנִינָא. מֵאוֹרְגֵי יְרִיעוֹת לָֽמְדוּ. מַה טַעַם. אוֹרֶךְ הַיְרִיעָ֣ה הָֽאַחַ֗ת. כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא כוּלָּהּ אַחַת. נִפְסַק הָיָה קוֹשְׁרוֹ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהָיָה מַגִּיעַ לָאָרִיג הֲוָה שָׁרִי לֵיהּ וּמְעִל לֵיהּ. רִבִּי תַנְחוּמָא בְשֵׁם רַב חוּנָה. אֲפִילוּ עָרֶב שֶׂבָּהּ לֹא הָיָה בוֹ לֹא קֶשֶׁר וְלֹא תִייָמֶת. “He who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties.” ³⁹⁴This paragraph and the next are also in Chapter 15, on Mishnah 15:1 (15), What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes³⁹⁵Needed to tie the gobelins which formed the lowest part of the roof to the posts. Mentioned Ex. 35:18. Babli 74b.. But was this not temporarily³⁹⁶Tying 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.? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word³⁹⁷By 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 55b., was it like temporarily? Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi Abun]³⁹⁸From G and 15, confirmed by Or 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]³⁹⁹The 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.. 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 one⁴⁰⁰Therefore both tying and untying happened during the construction of the Tabernacle and are correctly mentioned in the list of Sabbath prohibitions.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads⁴⁰¹The previous argument is not convincing. An expert in invisible mending can connect the threads without a knot being noticeable.. 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 gobelin⁴⁰²Ex. 26:2. To form a single unit, a gobelin could not have a broken thread even temporarily., that it should be an entity⁴⁰³For reasons of chronology, the [reading] of G is to be preferred over that of the (Leiden ms.) here and in Chapter 15.. 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]⁴⁰⁴For 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. Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection⁴⁰⁵A scribal error..

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. חוֹתֶל שֶׁלְתְּמָרִים וְפַּטֶילַּייָא שֶׁלְתְּמָרִים קוֹרֵעַ וּמַתִּיר. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִקְשׁוֹר. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a basket of palm leaves for dates or a plate⁴⁰⁷Greek πάτελλα, ἡ. of palm leaves one may tear and open, only one may not tie⁴⁰⁸Chapter 6, Note 41. Here ends the parallel in Chapter 15..

וְאֵין זוֹ הַתָּרָה. נַעֲשֶׂה בְשׁוֹבֵר אֶת הֶחָבִית לוֹכַל מִמֶּנָּה גְּרוֹגְרוֹת. אָזְנַיִים שֶׁל דִּיסִיקִיָּא קוֹשֵׁר וּמַתִּיר. נַעֲשֶׂה כְפוֹתֵחַ וְנוֹעֵל בַּשַּׁבָּת. Is this not untying? It is like one who breaks an amphora to eat dried figs⁴⁰⁹It 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.. The handles of a double sack⁴¹⁰Greek δισάκκιον, τό. one may tie and untie. It is as if one opened or locked on the Sabbath.

רִבִּי חֲנִינָה אָמַר. עַד יְחוֹת כָּל־סִיטְרָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּײ. אִמְרוּ לוֹ לְרִבִּי חֲנִינָא. צֵא וּקְרָא. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. עָשָׂה שְׁנֵי רָאשֶׁיהָ לְצַד אֶחָד. מֵעַתָּה עַד יְסוֹק וִיחוֹת וִיסוֹק. וְהָתַנִּינָן. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר עַד שֶׁיְּשַׁלֵּשׁ. מֵעַתָּה עַד יְחוֹת וִיסוֹק וִיחוֹת. אֶלְּא הָכֵן וְהָכֵן. חוּט שֶׁהִשְׁחִילוֹ בְמַחַט. אֲפִילוּ קָשׁוּר מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן אֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר. תְּפָרוֹ לַבֶּגֶד. הַחוּט חִיבּוּר לַבֶּגֶד וְאֵינוֹ חִיבּוּר לְמַחַט. רִבִּי יוֹנָה וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵה תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרֵי. בְּקָשׁוּר מִיכָּן וּמִיכָּן. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן פְּלִיגִין. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. הַמְמַתֵּחַ צְדָדָיו בַּשַּׁבָּת חַייָב מִשּׁוּם תוֹפֵר. נֹאמַר. מִשּׁוּם תוֹפֵר וּמִשּׂוּם קוֹשֵׁר. ⁴¹¹This paragraph is from Kilaim 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 side⁴¹²For him woolen and linen cloths create kilaim 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 state⁴¹³Mishnah Kilaim 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 so⁴¹⁴Either one follows the rabbis or R. Jehudah; in no case does one need more than three stitches.. 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 needle⁴¹⁵If 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, 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 Sabbath⁴¹⁶According to Maimonides (Šabbat 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.

קְרִיעָה בִּבְגָדִים וְחִיתּוּךְ בְּעוֹרוֹת. קְרִיעָה בִּבְגָדִים בָּאֶמְצָע. וְחִיתּוּךְ בְּעוֹרוֹת מִן הַצָּד. וְאִית דִּמְחַלְפִּין. קְרִיעָה בְּעוֹרוֹת וְחִיתּוּךְ בִּבְגָדִים. קְרִיעָה בְּעוֹרוֹת בְּאִילֵּין רְכִיכַייְא. וְחִיתּוּךְ בִּבְגָדִים. בְּאִילֵּין לֵיבֶדִייָא. Tearing applies to textiles and cutting to hides⁴¹⁷In 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?. 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.

ג. הַצָּד חֲלָזוֹן וּפְצָעוֹ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. אִית תַּנָּײֵ תַנֵּי. אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. מָאן דְּאָמַר. שְׁתַּיִם. אַחַת מִשּׁוּם צָד. וְאַחַת מִשׁוּם נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אַחַת. הַייְדָא הִיא מִשׁוּם נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה. וְלֵית לֵיהּ צַידָה. וְאַתְיָא כַּהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵה רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. מִין חַיָּה טְהוֹרָה בָרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה בַּמִּדְבָּר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָשָׂה בָהּ מְלֶאכֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן נִגְנְזָה. רִבִּי אָבוּן אָמַר. קֶרֶשׁ הָיָה שְׁמָהּ. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. דְּחָדָא קֶרֶן. וְתִיטַ֣ב לָ֭יי מִשּׁ֥וֹר פָּ֗ר מַקְרִין וּמַפְרִיס: מַקְרֵן כָּתוּב. 3⁴¹⁸Here starts discussion of Mishnah 3. Babli 75a.. 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 catching⁴¹⁹The 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, 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.? ⁴²⁰The following is from Chapter 2, Notes 111–114. 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 hooves⁴²¹Ps. 69:32.. It is written, it sprouts a horn.

הַשּׁוֹחֲטוֹ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לֵית כָּאן שְׁחִיטָה. שְׁחִיטָה תוֹלְדַת חַבּוּרָה הִיא. וְלָמָּה לֹא תְנִינָתָהּ עִמְּהוֹן. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנִּינָן סֶדֶר סְעוּדָה תְנִינָתָהּ עִמְּהוֹן. “Who slaughters it.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no slaughter here; slaughter is a derivative of wounding. And why was it (not)⁴²²It seems that this word should be deleted; it is not in the quote of the sentence in Or zaruaˋ (II §72). stated with it? Only because we stated the proceedings of a meal it was stated with it.

הַמְעַבְּדוֹ. מָה עִיבּוּד הָיָה בַמִּשְׁכָּן. שֶׁהָיוּ מְשַׁרְטְטִין בָּעוֹרוֹת. מַה מְשַׁרְטְטִין לוֹן. מְסַרְגְּלִין לוֹן. וְאַתְיָא כַּהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבָּהוֹ. מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֳהָלִים מֵעוֹר בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה. “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 ruler⁴²³Since 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.. ⁴²⁴It seems that this sentence is misplaced here and belongs to the preceding discussion of the taḥaš, 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.

הַמְמַחְקוֹ. מַה מְחִיקָה הָֽיְתָה בַמִּשְׁכָּן. זְעִיר בַּר חִינְנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָא. שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁפִין אֶת הָעוֹר עַל גַּבֵּי הָעַמּוּד. חָשַׂף אֶת הָעוֹר עַל גַּבֵּי הָעַמּוּד חַייָב. מַשּׁוּם מָה הוּא חַייָב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן לֵוִי רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן לֵוִי. מִשׁוּם מְמַחֵק. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר בְּחָדָשׁ. אֲבָל בְּיָשָׁן מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. הַמְכַכֵּד. הַמְרַבֵּץ. הַמְגַבֵּן. הַמְחַבֵּץ. הַחוֹלֵב וְהָרוֹדֶה חַלּוֹת דְּבַשׁ. חַייָב חַטָּאת. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. מִשּׁוּם שְׁבוּת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. וְלֹא פְלִיגִין. הַמְכַכֵּד הַמְרַבֵּץ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם דָּשׁ. הַמְגַבֵּן וְהַמְחַבֵּץ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם לָשׁ. הַחוֹלֵב וְהָרוֹדֶה חַלּוֹת דְּבַשׁ חַייָב מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר. הַסּוֹחֵט זֵיתִים מֵאִבֵּיהֶן חַייָב מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר. לְמִי נִצְרְכָה. לְרִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. “Who rubs it clean⁵To remove both hair outside and remainders of flesh inside to prepare for the tanning process which turns hide into leather..” What kind of erasure was in the tabernacle? Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They were rubbing the hide⁴²⁵The hides used to makes the covers of the Tabernacles, to clean them from all remainders of flesh clinging to the insides. 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 old⁴²⁶And rubbing will not change the nature of anything., it is the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Since they disagreed⁴²⁷Tosephta 9:13, Babli 95a.: “One who sweeps, who sprinkles⁴²⁸He 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., who makes cheese⁴²⁹According to a Geonic commentary quoted in Arukh, “who makes hard cheese.”, who makes butter⁴³⁰Definition of Arukh. 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 rest⁴³¹Rabbinic restrictions..” 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 Eliezer⁴³²Since these have no oil, they are squeezed to make them edible as fruit which is permitted for R. Simeon..

רִבִּי חִייָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַגּוֹרֵד רָאשֵׁי כְּלוֹנְסָאוֹת חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מְחַתֵּךְ. הַמְמָרֵחַ אֶת הָאִיסְפְּלָנִית חַייָב מִשּׁוּם מְמָחֵק. He who files off heads of poles is liable because of cutting⁴³³Babli 75b. He who applies salve on a wet bandage⁴³⁴Latin splenium, -ii, n.. is liable because of rubbing clean.

מָחַק אוֹת אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה וְיֵשׁ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ כְּדֵי לִכְתוֹב שְׁתֵי אוֹתוֹת חַייָב. כָּתַב אוֹת אַחַת גְּדוֹלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ כְּדֵי לִכְתוֹב שְׁתֵי אוֹתִיּוֹת פָּטוּר. רִבִּי מְנַחֵם בֵּירִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. זֶה חוֹמֶר בְּמוֹחֵק מִכּוֹתֵב. שֶׁהַמּוֹחֵק עַל מְנָת לְתַקֵּן הַייָב. וְהַכּוֹתֵב עַל מְנָת לְקַלְקֵל פָּטוּר. יֵשׁ שֶׁהוּא כוֹתֵב נְקוּדָה אַחַת וְחַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם כּוֹתֵב וּמִשּׁוּם מוֹחֵק. יֵשׁ שֶׁהוּא מוֹחֵק נְקוּדָה אַחַת וְחַייָב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם כּוֹתֵב וּמִשּׁוּם מוֹחֵק. הֵיךְ עֲבִידָא. הָיָה דַלֶּ״ת וַעֲשָׂאוֹ רֵישׁ. רֵישׁ וַעֲשָׂאוֹ דַלֶּת. חַייָב מִשּׁוּם כּוֹתֵב וּמִשּׁוּם מוֹחֵק. “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.^435,Babli 75b, Tosephta 11:9–10.⁴³⁶In 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.” 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 erasing⁴³⁷If 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”, “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.).

ד. מַה בִּנְייָן הָיָה בַמִּקְדָּשׁ. שֶׁהָיוּ נוֹתְנִין קְרָשִׁים עַל גַּבֵּי אֲדָנִים. וְלֹא לַשָּׁעָה הָֽייְתָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהָיוּ חוֹנִים וְנוֹסְעִים עַל פִּי הַדִּיבֵּר כְּמִי שֶׁהִיא לְעוֹלָם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִבְטִיחָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁהוּא מַכְנִיסָן לָאָרֶץ כְּמִי שֶׁהוּא לְעוֹלָם. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. בִּנְייָן לְשָׁעָה בִּנְייָן. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. אֲפִילוּ מִן הַצָּד. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. אֲפִילוּ נָתוּן עַל גַּבֵּי דָּבָר אַחֵר. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה. בִּנְייָן עַל גַּבֵּי כֵלִים בִּנְייָן. אֲדְנִים כְּקַרְקַע הֵן. 4. What building was at the Sanctuary? They were putting the planks on top of the bases⁴³⁷If 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”, “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 temporary³⁹⁶Tying 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.? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word³⁹⁷By 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 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 side⁴³⁸Since 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”.. This implies even if was put on top of something else. Does it imply that building on implements is building⁴³⁹This would forbid even putting a pot on top of another pot to keep food warm.? The bases are like soil⁴⁴⁰The 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..

תַּנֵּי. אֶחָד מֵבִיא אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְאֶחָד מֵבִיא אֶת הַטִּיט. הַמֵּבִיא אֶת הַטִּיט חַייָב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר. שְׁנֵיהֶן חַייָבִין. סָבַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אֶבֶן בְּלֹא טִיט בִּנְייָן. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין שֶׁאִים נָתַן אֶת הַטִּיט תְּחִילָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן אֶת הָאֶבֶן שֶׁהוּא חַייָב. הַבַּנַּאי שֵׁיִּישֵׁב אֶת הָאֶבֶן בְּרֹאשׁ הַדִּימוֹס חַייָב. לְמִי נִצְרְכָה. לְרַבָּנִן. וְהָהֵן דַּעֲבַד דַּפִּין וְהָהֵן דַּעֲבַד סַפְייָן. חַייָב מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. It was stated⁴⁴¹Tosephta 11:1, Babli 102b, with different attributions.: “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 building⁴⁴²A common Roman building method.. 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 row⁴⁴³Latin domus, -ūs, f., Greek δὁμος. is liable.⁴⁴⁴Continuation 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.” For whom is this needed? For the rabbis⁴⁴⁵Who in general require mortar as a sign of building activity, but not in this case.. One who put up planks and one who put up adobe walls is liable because of building⁴⁴⁶As the Mishnah stated, tearing down only creates liability if it is for the purpose of building anew..

וְהַסּוֹתֵר. וּבִלְבַד לְצוֹרֶךְ. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הַגּוֹדֵל כְּלֵי צוּרָה חַייָב מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. רִבִּי אִילָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. הַנּוֹפֵחַ כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית חַייָב מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. רַבָּנִן דְּקַיְסָרִין בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים קְרוֹבִים וּרְחוֹקִים. וְיֵשׁ דְּבָרִים רְחוֹקִים וּקְרוֹבִים. הַגּוֹדֵל כְּלֵי צוּרָה. וְהַנּוֹפֵחַ כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית. וְהָעוֹשֶׂה כֶלִי בִּדְפוּס. כּוּלְּהוֹן מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. הַבּוֹרֵר וְהַמְשַׁמֵּר וְהַמְרַקֵּד כּוּלְּהֹן מִשּׂוּם מַעֲבִיר פְּסוֹלֶת. כָּל־אֶחָד וָאֶחָד חִיּוּבוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן הוֹשָׁטָה עִמְּהוֹן. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹּשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. מִפְּנֵי מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה וַחֲכָמִים. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן לֵוִי רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי. יֶתֶר עֲלֵיהֶן הוֹשָׁטָה. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָתָהּ עִמְּהוֹן. כָּל־הַמְּלָאכוֹת בְּאַחַת. וְזוֹ בִשְׁתַּיִם. כָּל־הַמְּלָאכוֹת יֵשׁ לָהֵן תּוֹלְדוֹת. וְזוֹ אֵין לָהּ תּוֹלֶדֶת “And who tears down,” but only for a need⁴⁴⁶As the Mishnah stated, tearing down only creates liability if it is for the purpose of building anew.. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: he who braids a palm-leaf basket is liable because of building⁴⁴⁷The rule that there is no building with 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 close⁴⁴⁸There 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.. He who braids a palm-leaf basket, and he who blows a glass vessel, and he who makes a vessel in a form⁴⁴⁹Greek τύπος, ὁ. The vessel is cast., all are because of building. He who selects, who filters⁴⁵⁰R. 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”)., and who sifts, all because of removing waste. Each of them is separately liable⁴⁵¹Since they are separately listed in the Mishnah.. And why was handing over not stated with them⁴⁵²Why were the transactions described in Mishnaiot 1:1–2 not mentioned in the list of forbidden actions?? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the disagreement of Rebbi Aqiba and the Sages⁴⁵³In 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.”. 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 two⁴⁵⁴Since the numerals are in the feminine, they refer to domains, not to persons, as noted by R. David Fraenckel.. All categories of work have derivatives, but this has no derivative.