Jerusalem Shabbat

Mishnah

1 There are two kinds of transport on the Sabbath which are four kinds inside, and two kinds which are four kinds outside. How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.

Halakhah

“Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What is meant by “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rabbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated, “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted! Rabbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rabbi Yasa said in the name if Rabbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable. And from where that taking out is called work? Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan understood it from the following: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary.”Exodus 36:6 The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Aḥa understood everything from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.”Jeremiah 17:22

Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable. What Rabbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rabbi Yose, as it was stated: “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rabbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable.” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rabbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out? Therefore what Rabbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rabbi Yose.

Rabbi Ila said, not only if two doors open to two public roads but even if they open to the same public road will Rabbi Yose agree, for Rabbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. Just as Rabbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability so Rabbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability. For if he took out the volume of a dried fig through this door and the volume of a dried fig through that door in one period of oblivion is he not liable twice?

Rabbi Yudan said, Rabbi Yose compares domains to eating slices. For if one ate the volume of half an olive during the time needed to eat one slice and another volume of half an olive in the time needed to eat another slice, is he not free from liability? If one ate several volumes of olives during several times needed to eat a slice in one period of forgetting, he is liable only once.

The rabbis of Caesarea say, before you compare this to fat, compare it to the rules of Sabbath itself. For if one was weaving one thread on this piece of cloth and weaving one thread on that piece of cloth, is he not free from liability? If he wove several threads on several pieces of cloth in one period of oblivion he is liable only once.

Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The one who takes out is not liable until he put it down. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rabbi Zeira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down. What Rabbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rabbi Yose, as it was stated: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rabbi Yose said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rabbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down. Just as Rabbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability. Explain it as a case where it was put down within four cubits of the door, as it was stated, “otherwise he is not liable.” Rabbi Abba the son of Rabbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first.

There, we have stated: “Rabbi Meir says, if it was a Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. Who is “they said to him”? Rabbi Yose! The argument of Rabbi Yose is inverted. There, he does not consider the person walking equal to one who was putting down but here he is considering the person walking equal to one who was putting down! Rabbi Yudan said, explain it that he was laying on the threshold partially inside, his mouth outside, when he stretched out his hand, took it, and ate it. Then he did not walk.

Rabbi Yannai said, one who swallowed half the volume of an olive, then threw it up, and again swallowed it, is liable. But one who brought in half the volume of a dried fig and took it out again, is not liable. What is the difference between this and the first one? There his palate enjoyed the volume of an olive, but here he never dealt with a full volume of a fig. Rabbi Yose said, sometimes a person may be dealing with a full volume of a fig and not be liable. How is this possible? He took out half of the volume of a dried fig, put it down, again took out half of the volume of a dried fig, but did not manage to put it down before the first one was burned. He was dealing with a full volume of a fig but is not liable. Because he compared it to forbidden fat he contrived this.

Rabbi Joḥanan said, if one exports from a private domain to the public domain through karmelit, he is liable because of him who carries on his back, from the following: “One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable.” For it is impossible that between him and the wall should not karmelit be created. Rabbi Yose said, explain it that his face was turned to the wall and his load on his back and so his load exited first. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked Rabbi Mana: But this is not a usual way of carrying out! He told him, professional porters act in this way. But the following implies it, as Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Maisha said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold.” Is the threshold not karmelit? Rabbi Yose was sorry that he had not said this himself.

Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for throwing one is liable. It is everybody’s opinion that the air space over karmelit is not like its essence. Where do they disagree? If one carries out. Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai makes the person walking as if he was putting down but the Sages do not make the person walking as if he was putting down. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Huna: In Ben Azzai’s opinion nobody ever could become liable for four cubits! Since when he transported something, it is made as if he put it down within every cubit; he should be not liable.

Rav Judah in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for carrying out one is not liable. It is everybody’s opinion that walking counts as if one was putting down. Where do they disagree? If one is throwing, for Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai considers the air space over karmelit like its essence but the Sages consider the air space over karmelit not like its essence.

A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna: If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rabbi Judah: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rabbi Meir says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out. They told him, it is not the category.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai. In the opinion of Rav Judah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages. Rabbi Ḥinena said, who is “they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai.

Rabbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what? Is that not a Mishnah, “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable. What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There, why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it. Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person. Rabbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rabbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Shammai in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: He is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth,” his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person? Rabbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons! Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that “when he did it”Leviticus 4:27? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable.

Rabbi Joḥanan said, if somebody was standing in the public domain, collected rain from the airspace of walls and carried it out, he is liable. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Zeira, it is so if he grabbed it, but if he collected it he is not liable. What is the difference between whether another person gave him or if Heaven gave? It follows Rabbi, for Rabbi made the airspace of walls like their substance.

If he was standing inside and his hand full of produce was stretched to the outside when the day became holy he is forbidden to take it back. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abba: following him who said that it is forbidden to use the space below ten hand-breadths. There are Tannaim who state, it is permitted. They wanted to say, he who says it is permitted if there was four cubits of space; but he who says it is forbidden if there was not four cubits of space. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, in both cases it is forbidden it follows him who said that it is forbidden to use the space below ten hand-breadths. What about it? He who says it is forbidden below ten hand-breadths; he who says it is permitted, above ten hand-breadths.

Mishnah: “The poor man is liable but the householder is not liable.” Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: Only if the poor man’s hand is within ten hand-breadths from the ground. Rabbi Zeira said, if he is distant four hand-breadths from the wall. But if he is not distant four hand-breadths from the wall, it is karmelit. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Simeon Karsanah: If his face was turned toward the public road. But if his face was turned toward the wall it is karmelit.

Rabbi Ḥisda in the name of Ashi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable. Rav said, a leather container which stands in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and four wide; anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable. Rabbi Hoshaiah stated: “A candelabra which stands in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and its flower four wide; anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable.” Rabbi Mana said, not only a candelabra but even a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high with a tablet fixed to its head, anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable.

How do we know that higher than ten hand-breadths is a different domain? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “There I will make My Appearance to you, and I will speak to you from above the cover which is on the Ark of the Covenant”“from between the two Cherubim.”Exodus 25:22 And it is written, “you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you.”Exodus 20:22 Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths? In the House of Rabbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth. Rabbi Zeira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rabbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we will learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, “you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around.” Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it is only “make a golden wreath as its frame all around”? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth.

Rabbi Yose asked, if there were a very high chest standing in a house, would it not be permitted to use anything from in it into the house or from the house into it? But we are dealing when it was indicating to them the geographic directions. This is understandable for him who said, a cubit of six hand-breadths. But for him who said, a cubit of five hand-breadths? Would the Ark not be seven and one half hand-breadths? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the House of Rabbi Yannai and Rabbi Simeon ben Jehozadak. One learns it from the Ark, but the other learns it from the wagons. We do not know who learned it from the Ark and who learned in from the wagons. It is reasonable that the House of Rabbi Yannai learned it from the Ark since the House of Rabbi Yannai said, the cover was one hand-breadth. Rabbi Simeon ben Jehozadak learns if from the Wagons. Rabbi Zeira asked, from where that the Wagons were ten hand-breadths high? Rabbi Yose said, and even if you said that they were ten high, did not Rabbi Neḥemiah state that the Freight Wagons were like a cupola? If there was a hole in the public domain ten deep and four wide, would it no be forbidden to use anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it? But when they were transferring the planks from one to the other they were straight.

“Neither is liable.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah, the rabbis in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: In the category of two people performing one work. Rav asked Rabbi, if another person put a bundle on his back, when he forgot and brought it out? On the occasion of the second repetition he told him, he is liable because it does not compare to this. Rabbi is of the opinion that when he started to walk it is as if he had taken up the object. In the opinion of Rabbi, if he stood in the public domain and threw but ran and caught it in a private domain, what? But is that not Rabbi since Rabbi made the airspace enclosed by walls like its essence? It is only necessary in case he stood in the private domain and threw but ran and and caught it in a public domain, what? It was found stated: Rabbi declares him not liable until the moment it comes to rest.

Rabbi Abun said, Rabbi, Ben Azzai, and Rabbi Akiva, all three said the same. Rabbi made the airspace enclosed by walls like its essence. Ben Azzai made the airspace enclosed by karmelit like its essence. Rabbi Akiva made the airspace over public domain like its essence.

“There are four kinds of domain on the Sabbath: Private domain, public domain, karmelit, and dead-end streets. What is private domain? A ditch ten deep and four wide, or a wall ten high and four wide; this is completely private domain. And what is completely public domain? A street, a wide road, desert, and passages open at both ends. One does not export from a private to a public domain nor import from a public to a private domain. If somebody exported or imported in error he is liable for a purification sacrifice; intentionally he is liable for extirpation or is stoned, whether he exports or imports, or lifts or throws. An ocean, or a valley, or a platform, or a threshold, or karmelit are neither public nor private domain; one does not carry there but if one carried he is not liable.”

Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated all of these. The sea as we have stated there: “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit. A valley as we have stated: “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity. During the rainy season it is private public domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated: “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.” A platform, as we have stated: “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rabbi Judah; but the rabbis forbid.” A threshold, as we have stated: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if he completed the work at one time he would not be liable. Karmelit. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full,” neither moist nor dry but average. And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus. A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden.

Rabbi Zeirah in the name of Rav Judah; Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: landings between pillars are judged as karmelit. Rabbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Judah in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: The flowers of the pillars are considered karmelit. There it is necessary that they be higher than three hand-breadths; Ḥiyya the son of Rav: Anything which hinders access in the public domain is considered karmelit. The rabbis of Caesarea say, even thistles, even glass. This is necessary if they are not three hand-breadths high.

And Rabbi Yose said: The threshold about which they spoke is four wide but not ten high. If you would say, ten high and four wide, it is a domain by itself. If you would say, ten high but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Assi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways on condition that he not exchange. But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high.

A threshold in front of the door; others say whenever the door is open it is entirely inside, when it is locked it is entirely outside. What are we dealing with? If it is roofed even when it is locked it is entirely inside, if it is not roofed even when it is open it is entirely outside. But we must deal with the case that it is partially roofed and partially not roofed. What does it mean, when it is locked it is entirely outside? It is permitted for use from it to the outside and from the outside to it. If there was a hole in the door it is forbidden for use from it to the hole and from the hole to it. Rabbi Nathan says, when it is locked it is entirely outside; when it is open it is partially inside and partially outside. And that is what we wanted to say; a threshold of four when the door is locked is entirely outside, also when the door is open it is partially inside and partially outside.

Mishnah

2 A person should not sit before the barber close to the time of afternoon prayers unless he has prayed. Nor should one enter the bathhouse or the tannery, nor start eating, nor sit in judgment; if they started they should not interrupt. One interrupts for the recitation of the Shema but not for prayer.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “A person should not sit before the barber,” etc. We have stated “close to the afternoon prayers.” Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, close to darkness. Our Mishnah needs Rabbi Ḥiyya’s baraita and Rabbi Ḥiyya’s baraita needs our Mishnah. If Rabbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that he means exactly darkness but not the afternoon prayers. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary. But if Rabbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that everywhere “afternoon prayers” is stated it means afternoon prayers, and everywhere “darkness” is stated it means darkness. Since we stated “afternoon prayers” and Rabbi Ḥiyya stated “darkness,” this implies that “darkness” stated later refers to the time of afternoon prayers. Rabbi Ḥananiah the son of Rav Hoshaiah’s brother said, our Mishnah refers to the am haʾaretz, what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated to haverim. The rabbis of Caesarea say our Mishnah is following Rabbi Judah, what Rabbi Ḥiyya stated follows the rabbis.

“Before the barber close to the time of afternoon prayers unless he had prayed. Nor should one enter a bathhouse.” What is the start of hair-dressing? When he starts cutting the hair. But did we not state, if he sat down to have his hair cut and they came and told him that his father had died, he finishes grooming his head, whether it was the person grooming or the one being groomed. It is done only when he is wrapped in the shoulder cloth.

What is the start of bathing? Rabbi Zeriqan in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina said, when he opened his belt. Rav said, when he took off his shoe. As the following. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi was used to hear the lesson of his grandson every Friday. Once he forgot and went bathing in the public baths of Tiberias; he was leaning on Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s shoulder. He remembered that he had not heard his grandson’s lesson, turned around and left. When was this? Rabbi Derosai said, he was anointing himself. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose says, he had taken off his clothes. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, did our teacher not teach us “if they started they should not interrupt”? He said to him, Ḥiyya my son, is that unimportant in your eyes? For anyone who hears the lesson from his grandson is as if he heard it from Sinai. What is the reason? “You shall make it known to your sons and grandsons, the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb.”Deuteronomy 4:10

Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise, take either the very first or the very last source. Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? “Only in image a man wanders.”Psalms 39:6 It is written, “many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust”Proverbs 20:6? That is Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira said, we do not take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rabbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abba bar Zavda, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

“Nor the tannery.” Come and look, does one not avoid people who stink? And you say so? It comes only when he puts on his work clothes.

“Nor start eating.” What is the start of eating? Rabbi Aha, Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi: When he washed his hands. Rabbi Aha said, this was said for Qidduš. Rabbi Abba said, this was said for the benediction. Rav had washed his hands when his son Hiyya gave a sign to the waiter, who wanted to serve him. He told him, we already started the meal.

Clarification. Rabbi Miasha and Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac were sitting and eating in one of the upper synagogues. There came the time of prayer and Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac got up to pray. Rabbi Misha said to him, Teacher, did you not teach us that once one started one does not interrupt? And Ḥizqiah stated, every one who is not under an obligation and does it anyway is called uneducated? He said to him, did we not state, “the bridegroom is not liable,” “the bridegroom if he wants to recite recites.” He answered him, I can explain this following Rabban Gamliel who said, “I will not listen to you to lift from me the Kingdom of Heaven for one moment.”

“Nor sit in judgment.” Rav Jeremiah and Rav Joseph. One said, when they sat down to judge; the other said, when they start presenting their arguments.

“One interrupts for the recitation of the Shema but not for prayer.” Rabbi Aḥa said, the recitation of Shema is a Biblical obligation; prayer is not a Biblical obligation. Rabbi Abba said, the time for the recitation of the Shema is fixed, the time for prayer is not fixed. Rabbi Yose said, the recitation of Shema does not need concentration, prayer needs concentration. Rabbi Mana said: I objected to Rabbi Yose: Even if you say that the recitation of the Shema does not need concentration, the first three verses need concentration. Since there are so few, one will concentrate.

Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, do not interrupt even for the recitation of the Shema.” Rabbi Joḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, do interrupt even for prayer.”This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rabbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rabbi Joḥanan said, if only a man prayed the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain.Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, if I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that He should create two mouths for a man; one for him to exert himself in Torah, and the other one for his needs. But he changed and said, with one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of the denunciations; if there were two how much more would there be?Rabbi Yose said before Rabbi Jeremiah: The position of Rabbi Joḥanan is identical with that of Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Akiva, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shema but do not interrupt for prayer. Rabbi Ḥananiah ben Akiva said, just as they interrupt for Shema, so they interrupt for prayer, Tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah.”Would not Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a Sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born. And did not Rabbi Joḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the placenta he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and one does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not state: “He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. Rabbi Yudan said that Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was enjoying studying Torah, did not prefer Shema to the study of Torah. Rabbi Abba Mari said, did we not state: “He is only like a man studying Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law.

Mishnah

3 A tailor should not leave with his needle close to sundown in case he forgets and leaves; nor the scribe with his pen. He should not check his garments for lice nor read by candlelight. In truth they said that the teacher may look where the children are reading but he may not read himself. Similarly, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux because of inducement to sin.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “A tailor should not leave with his needle close to sundown in case he forgets and leaves,” etc. It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If one of these left they are not liable, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.”The argument of Rabbi Meir seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rabbi Meir,” and here he says so? Rabbi Mana said it without attribution, Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle with ear she is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rabbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

Mishnah “He should not check his garments for lice nor read by candlelight,” etc. Even on weekdays it is forbidden since it is not decent. It was stated: One who checks his garments takes and throws away; only he should not rub. Abba Shaul says, he may rub and throw away, only he should not kill. Ḥizqiah said, one who kills a louse is like one who kills a camel. Samuel broke off its hands and feet and gave if to the children. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun put it in a flask. Rabbi Simeon ben Ḥalafta said, did we not understand this from the purple snail? Does the purple snail have sinews and bones? But was it not stated: Any which has neither sinews nor bones does not live more than six months? For Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said in the name of Rav Zevid, the Holy One, praise to Him, turns around His world once in seven years. Qamqama turns into Ḥu-Rav-Padah. Ḥar-Efer turns into Šer. The head louse turns into a scorpion and the one of garments into a lizard. A horse worm turns into a wasp, that of cattle into a bee. A male hyena turns into a female, a field rat turns into a wild boar. The spine of a fish turns into a centipede, of a human into a snake. When? If he does not bow down with his entire spine.

Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry. Some want to say, because it is for a short time; but some want to say because of cleanliness or danger. What is the difference between them? To separate lettuce leaves. For him who says, because it is for a short time, it is forbidden. For him who says, because of cleanliness or danger, it is permitted. Rav Jeremiah visited Rav Assi, who mixed a cup for him. He started inspecting it. His house companion said to him, look what he is doing! He told her, because he follows his teacher’s argument, as Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry.

“Nor read by candlelight.” Samuel said, they stated that only for a single person. Therefore for two, who can hinder one another, it is permitted. Samuel’s baraita disagrees with him: “Both a light which he can turn as one which he cannot turn.” Ulla bar Ishmael in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Even many. In the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar even if it is very high, even if it is in one house, even if it is on a look-out.

It was stated, in case he forgets and turns. “Rabbi Ishmael said, I will read but not turn. He forgot and almost turned. He said, how great are the words of the Sages who said, in case he forgets and turns. Rabbi Nathan says, he actually turned and wrote on his writing tablet, Ishmael ben Elisha turned the light on the Sabbath. When the Temple will be rebuilt he is liable for a purification sacrifice.”

There, we have stated: “Do not believe in yourself up to the day of your death.” It happened that a pious man sat and stated, do not believe in yourself up to your old age, as I Am. There came a spirit to tempt him, and he started to err after her. She told him, do not feel bad, I am a spirit. Go and be equal to your colleagues.

Mishnah: “In truth they said that the teacher may look where the children are reading.” Rabbi Eleazar said that every place where they stated “in truth” it is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai. What does he have to put in order? The beginnings of paragraphs or verses. It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, children prepare the beginnings of verses by candlelight.” What about it? These want the light to go out, those do not want the light to go out.

Mishnah: “Similarly, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux.” It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, look how far purity did spread, as it is said, “for the little which you had expanded mightily;”Genesis 30:30 “and their families expanded mightily.” They did not decide to say, the pure may not eat with the impure, but they said, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux; therefore the male sufferer from gonorrhea with a female sufferer from skin disease is permitted. “He shall dwell outside his tent”Leviticus 14:8 but not outside her tent. A male sufferer from skin disease with a female sufferer from flux is forbidden; a male sufferer from skin disease with a female sufferer from skin disease is forbidden.

It was stated: “The House of Shammai say, a Pharisee who suffers from gonorrhea may not eat with an am haʾaretz who suffers from gonorrhea, but the House of Hillel permit it.” What is the House of Hillel’s reason? This one suffers from gonorrhea and that one suffers from gonorrhea. But what is the House of Shammai’s reason? If he gets used to him during the days of his impurity he will remain used to him in the days of his purity. The Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya commanded Rav, if you are able to eat profane food in purity the entire year long, eat it. But if not, eat it seven days per year.

“From here did Rabbi Phinehas ben Yair say, promptitude brings to cleanliness, cleanliness brings to purity, purity brings to holiness, holiness to meekness, meekness to fear of sin, fear of sin to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit to piety, piety to the Resurrection of the Dead, the Resurrection of the Dead through Elijah, may his remembrance be a blessing.”“Promptitude to cleanliness,” “he finishes, and he atones.”“Cleanliness to purity,” “the priest shall atone for her, then she will be pure.”Leviticus 12:8“Purity to holiness,” “he shall purify it and sanctify it.”Leviticus 16:19“Holiness to meekness,” “for so says the High and Elevated One, Who thrones eternally, His name is Holy, in sublimity and holiness I dwell, and the suppressed and of meek spirit.”Isaiah 57:15“Meekness to fear of sin,” “the consequence of meekness is fear of the Eternal.”Proverbs 22:4 Rabbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, what wisdom proclaimed as a crown to its head, meekness made a heel for its sandal, for it is written, the head of wisdom is the fear of the Eternal, but it is written, “the heel of meekness is fear of the Eternal.”Proverbs 22:4“Fear of sin to the Holy Spirit,” as it is written, “then you will understand and knowledge of God you will find.”Proverbs 2:5“The Holy Spirit to piety,” as it is written, “then You spoke in a vision to Your pious.”Psalms 89:19“Piety to the Resurrection of the Dead,” as it is written, “I will give My Spirit into you and you will live.”Ezekiel 37:14“The Resurrection of the Dead through Elijah, may his remembrance be a blessing,” as it is written, “look, I am sending to you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Eternal, that he turn the fathers’ hearts to the sons and the sons’ hearts to their fathers.”Malachi 4:5–6It was stated in the name of Rabbi Meir: Anybody permanently in the Land of Israel who eats his profane food in purity, speaks in the holy language, and recites the Shema mornings and evenings is assured to participate in the life of the World to Come.

Mishnah

4 These are of the practices which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon, when they came to visit him. They voted and the House of Shammai had the majority over the House of Hillel; eighteen items they decided on that day.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “These are of the practices which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon, when they came to visit him,” etc. “This day was hard for Israel like the day on which the Golden C alf was made. Rabbi Eliezer said, on that day they filled the bushel to overflow. Rabbi Joshua said, on that day they filled the bushel to the rim. Rabbi Eliezer said to him, if it was deficient and they filled it it would have been reasonable, as with an amphora full of nuts; if you fill it with sesame seeds it will be strengthened. Rabbi Joshua said to him, if it had been full and they diminished it, it would have been reasonable, as with an amphora filled with oil; if you add water to it it dilutes the oil.”

Rabbi Joshua from Ono stated: The students of the House of Shammai were standing downstairs and killing the students of the House of Hillel. It was stated, six of them went up; the rest were standing around them with swords and lances.

It was stated, eighteen things they decided, in eighteen they were a majority and in eighteen they were divided. The following they decided: About Gentiles’ bread, and about their cheeses, and about their oil, and about their daughters, and about their semen, and about their urine, and about the rules of a person with an emission, and about the rules of the land of Gentiles. There we have stated: “The following make heave unusable. One who eats food impure in the first degree, and one who eats food impure in the second degree, and one who drinks impure drinks, and one who comes with his head and most of his body in drawn water, and a pure person on whose head and most of his body fell three log drawn water, and a scroll, and hands, and the Ṭevul yom, and food and vessels which became impure by fluids.”

The rabbis of Caesarea said, of those which they decided there were seven of those where they had a majority. The others are the following: A person being on the road when it gets dark gives his wallet to a Non-Jew. Similarly, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux because of inducement to sin. All movables transmit impurity by the thickness of the yoke. How one harvests grapes on a broken field. One who puts vessels under the pipe. For six doubts one burns heave. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, also the growth of heave. The following they decided: the first ten and the remainder from what Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: On that day they decided about their bread, and their cheeses, and their wine, and their vinegar, and their fish brine, and their muries, and their preserves, and their parboiled food, and their corned food, and on split grain, and on ground food, and on peeled barley, on their speech, and on their testimony, and on their gifts, on their sons, and on their daughters, and on their firstlings.

Their bread. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: this is of the practices of obfuscation. Rabbi Yose said, so I asked Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa: What is meant by “of the practices of obfuscation”? Do we say, at a place where Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it? Or at a place where Jewish bread is not available it would be logical that Gentile bread should be permitted and they obfuscated about it and forbade it? Rabbi Mana said, is there any obfuscation for prohibition? But is bread not like cooking of Gentiles? Are we saying: At a place where no Jewish cooking is available it would be logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted? But it must be the following: At a place where Jewish bread is not available it would be logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it because of the necessities of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Following the words of him who was permitting, but only from the store; but one does not do this.

They said before the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya: Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated thus: “Food you shall buy from them with money and eat, and also water you may acquire,” etc. As water is not changed from its natural state, so anything which was not changed from its natural state. They objected: Are there not their dry beans, pankrisin and qubtiyot, roasted grain, and hot water permitted? One understands all of these because they can be soaked and return to their former state. What about roasted grain? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav said: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking but one may use it for eruv tavšilin. How does Rabbi Ḥiyya explain “food you shall buy from them”? You must buy with food. If you fed him you bought him. If he causes you trouble buy him with food or otherwise ply him with him money. They said, that is what Rabbi Jonathan did. When he saw that a superior came to his town, he sent him an honor gift. What did he say? If a suit involving an orphan or a widow came he would have a way to mollify him.

Their cheese. Rabbi Jeremiah said, why is a Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of admixture from forbidden animals. It was stated so: “There is nothing to worry if the Jew stands with the herd while the Gentile milks and brings to him.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah, Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Why is a Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of uncovering. Let him make cheese! Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison left between the holes. It was stated so: There are three kinds of poison; one swims, one sinks down, and one is similar to a net on top. In the days of Rabbi Jeremiah the barrels of the Great Assembly were uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die. The later ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. Workers were in the field. The water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die. The later ones died. I say that it was sinking poison.

“Uncovering is not a danger for oil and vinegar, brine, and muries, and honey, but Rabbi Simeon forbids. The Sages agree with Rabbi Simeon when it was seen pecking.” It was stated thus: “If a watermelon was pecked and ten people ate from it or wine was uncovered and ten people drank from it, it is forbidden to eat or drink after them; I say that there was sinking poison.”

Their oil. Who forbade the oil? Rav Judah said, Daniel forbade it. “Daniel was careful not to defile himself by the king’s repast and the wine he drank.”Daniel 1:8 Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, but some say it in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: For it they were climbing up King’s Mountain and were killed for it.

And who permitted it? Rabbi and his court permitted it. At three places is Rabbi Judah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “a permissive court,” for any court which permits three previously forbidden things is called “permissive court.” Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Ishmael said, his court disagreed with him about bills of divorce.Rabbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rabbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rabbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Zadok, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha went down to Nisibis. He met Rabbi Simlai the Southerner who sat and expounded: Rabbi and his court permitted the oil. Samuel accepted this and ate. Rav did not eat. Samuel told him, eat! Otherwise I will declare you a rebellious Elder. He answered him, when I still was there I knew who complained about it, Rabbi Simlai the Southerner. He told him, did he say it in the name of himself? No, in the name of Rabbi Judah the Prince. He bothered him and he ate.

Their daughters. Rabbi Eleazar said, in seven places it is written “do not intermarry with them.” Rabbi Abun said, to forbid seven peoples. Rabbi Joshua from Ono stated, to forbid their eggs. Rabbi Ishmael stated, “and the ostrich’s daughter.”Leviticus 11:16 This is the ostrich’s egg.

Their semen. But did not Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Ḥinena say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, a Gentile’s semen is pure for semen cannot be discharged without urine.

About the rules of a person with an emission. Rabbi Abba bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi. He may study practical rules but not homiletics. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Yose: He may repeat known rules but he may not expound the Mishnah. Some want to say, he may not mention the Divine Name.

And about the rules for the land of Gentiles. But did not Rabbi Zeira bar Abinna say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Joseph ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity of the land of Gentiles and of glass vessels; Rabbi Jonah said, Rabbi Judah ben Tabbai. Rabbi Yose said, Rabbi Judah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetaḥ decreed impurity of metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed about purity of hands. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Levi: so practice had been in their hands but they forgot it. The secondary authorities came and agreed with the intent of the first ones. To teach you that everything for which the Court made a real effort will in the end be confirmed for them as it was said to Moses on Sinai. This comes as Rabbi Mana said, “for it is not an empty matter for you,”Deuteronomy 32:47 if it is an empty matter, it is from you since you do not exert yourselves for it. “For it is your life.” When is it your life? Any time you are exerting yourselves for it.

Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser court may abolish. They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rabbi Joḥanan said it and asked about it. Rabbi Krispedai in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms. Rabbi Jonathan Joḥanan asked. Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other decrees than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rabbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid. They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rabbi Jonathan Joḥanan objected! Rav Kahana the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rabbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished.

Naḥman, the son of Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥmani: The five kinds of purification sacrifices which are left to die, if the Court decides to abolish, they may abolish. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that means that they are not sent to die but are used for voluntary sacrifices. But as far as sacrificing on the altar is concerned, no purification sacrifice destined to die may be sacrificed.

Mishnah

5 The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch, unless they will be soaked when it still is daylight; but the House of Hillel permit it.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink, chemicals, or vetch,” etc. What is the House of Shammai’s reason? “Six days you shall work and do all your deeds.”Exodus 20:9 “All your deeds,” finish them by daylight. What is the House of Hillel’s reason? “Six days you shall work on your works and on the seventh day.”Exodus 23:12 How do the House of Hillel explain the House of Shammai’s reason, “six days you shall work and do all your deeds”? When they work with their hands. How do the House of Shammai explain the House of Hillel’s reason, “six days you shall work on your works and on the seventh day”? Following what was stated, “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rabbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise. Rabbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rabbi Judah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg.

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer; the House of Hillel put a question to the House of Shammai which they could not answer. “The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, do you not agree with us that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press? They did not find an answer.” Rabbi Zeira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, each drop already was dislocated; here what can you say?

The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer. “The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, do you not agree with us that one does not roast meat, or onions, or an egg, unless they be completely roasted when it is still daylight? They did not find an answer.” Rabbi Zeira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, onion, meat, or egg, usually are flipped; here, what can you say? Rabbi Yudan said, if they were roasted like Ben Derosai’s food. They forbade something which usually is flipped unless it be completely roasted as long as it is still day. Rabbi Mana said, it is not reasonable that it should be permitted. For they can say to them, how can you respond to us with something which ordinarily is completely roasted when it still is day about something which ordinarily cannot be completely soaked when it still is day?

Mishnah

6 The House of Shammai say, one does not put bundles of flax into an oven unless they are steamed when it is still daylight, nor wool into a vat unless it may absorb the dye, but the House of Hillel permit it.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not put bundles of flax into an oven,” etc. What profit does he have? Rabbi Abbahu said, for example these villagers who do not care.Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: Only if the vat was taken off. But if the vat was fixed, it is forbidden, since he will be afraid that his dye will have been absorbed and he will add water. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: The House of Hillel learn permitted work from forbidden work. Would it not be forbidden if he did it on the Sabbath? When he did similarly as long as it is still daytime it is permitted.

Mishnah

7 The House of Shammai say, one does not set traps for wild animals, or birds, or fish unless they may be caught when it is still daylight, but the House of Hillel permit it.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does set traps for wild animals, or birds, of fish,” etc. Who informs? If the trap was sprung, it is certain that they were caught when it still was day. But if the trap was not sprung, it is certain that they were not caught when it still was day. And even if the trap was sprung, in worry one may say that they were not caught when it still was day. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, if it was set in a forest. You should know that it is so since we have stated “fish.” Are fish not there where they are found? Also here at a place where game and birds are found.

Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi instituted that it should not happen. They wanted to say, they are permitted the next day. Rabbi Ḥizqiah and Rabbi Uziel the son of Rabbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden. But Rabbi Joḥanan said, in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.

The Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi, one said a Gentile needs preparation, the other said, a Gentile does not need preparation. We did not know who said this and who said that. From that Rav refrained from coming before the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya who asked him, where have you been? He told him: a caravan passed by and I ate figs from them this implies that he said, a Gentile does not need preparation.

A student of Rabbi Simai went to Antipatris; they brought him Morocco-plums and he ate. A student of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi went there; they brought him Morocco-plums and he did not eat. He came and told it to his teacher who said to him, this one follows the argument of Rabbi Simai, as Rabbi Simai said, a Gentile does not need preparation. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The red grapes in a vineyard are forbidden. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The hard dates on palm leaves are permitted.

Mishnah

8 They House of Shammai say, one does not sell to a Non-Jew, nor put a load on him unless he may reach a nearby destination, but the House of Hillel permit it.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “They House of Shammai say, one sells to a Non-Jew,” etc. What is meant by “a nearby destination”? It should be as Samuel said, for example as from Ḥuṭra to Nahardea; here it is the same. Some want to say, until he reaches his home. But some want to say, until he reaches his town. Rabbi Akiva says, that he leaves the place of the door when the day becomes holy around him. Rabbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabbi Yose: But Rabbi Akiva comes to determine following the words of the House of Hillel. One does not give to a Gentile on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere. One does not give to a dog on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere.

It was stated: Gentile workmen who were working for an Israelite, in the Israelite’s house it is forbidden, in their houses it is permitted. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, when has this been said? For contract work. But for one hired by the day it is forbidden. When has this been said, when it was cut from the ground, but as long as it is standing on the ground it is forbidden. In another town, in any case it is permitted. What is meant by “in any case”? Whether cut from the ground or standing on the ground; whether a hireling or contract work. Rabbi Illa said, whether separated from the ground or connected to the ground, but only for contract work. Rabbi Simeon ben Barqana in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: Concerning Sabbath, mourning, and idolatry, practice follows Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar.

One sends letters through a Gentile neither on Friday nor on Thursday. The House of Shammai forbid even on Wednesday but the House of Hillel permit. They said about Rabbi Jose the priest that his handwriting never was found in the hand of a Gentile.

One embarks on the ocean neither on Friday nor on Thursday. The House of Shammai forbid even on Wednesday but the House of Hillel permit. If it is not dangerous, as from Tyre to Sidon, it is permitted.

One does not lay siege to a Gentile city within three days before the Sabbath. That is in a war of choice. But in a war of obligation even on the Sabbath, for so we find that Jericho was conquered only on a Sabbath, as it is written, “so you shall act for six days,”Joshua 6:3 and it is written, “on the Seventh Day you shall circle the city seven times.”Joshua 6:4 And it is written, “until it fell,”Deuteronomy 20:20 even on the Sabbath.

Mishnah

9 The House of Shammai say, one does not give hides to the tannery worker nor clothing to the Non-Jewish washer unless the work may be done when it is still daylight. In all cases, the House of Hillel permit as long as the sun still shines. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, my father’s house used to give their white garments to a Non-Jewish washer three days before the Sabbath. They both agree that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “One does not give hides to the tannery worker,” etc. How long? It should come like what Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Onias, the time needed to walk four miles. And here, if he gave his clothing to the Gentile fuller and found him treating them on the Sabbath, it is forbidden. Rabbi Yudan said, he should tell him not to do it. Rabbi Yudan, the father of Rabbi Mattaniah said, that is, for goodwill. But for a fee, he looks after his work.

“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in my father’s house they used,” etc. They mentioned only white, therefore not colored. Following our routine we infer that white garments are more difficult to wash than colored ones.

“They both agree,” etc. Rabbi Samuel and Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, because every single drop was moved from its place. Rabbi Aḥa said, Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina asked, may one touch the flow? The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina disagreed; Rabbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden; Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, it is permitted. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: They both agree that one may not touch the flow.

Mishnah

10 One does not roast meat, onions, or an egg, unless they be roasted when it still is daylight. One does not put bread dough into the oven when it gets dark nor pita on coals unless they form a crust. Rabbi Eliezer says, unless they form a crust at their bottoms.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “One does not roast meat, onions, or an egg, unless they be roasted when it still is daylight,” etc. Rabbi Bun bar Kahana in the name of the rabbis: A dish which is fully cooked one may leave on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rabbi Zeira asked: Meat, onion, and egg shrink and it is bad for them. This one is shrinking and it is good for it, and you say so? Maybe this was said only for hot water. Rabbi Samuel came, Rabbi Zeira asked: It is forbidden to leave hot water which was fully heated on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rabbi Bevai in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A dish of beef which was cooked as Ben Derosai’s food one may return on a cooking stove covered with ashes. This comes like what Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One warns somebody who puts a pot on top of coals. When it will be cooked as Ben Derosai’s food it is forbidden. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of the important Rabbi Simeon: Hot water which was fully heated one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rabbi Zeira asked: To leave on is forbidden but to return is permitted? Maybe it was only said for the Passover sacrifice. There Rabbi Aḥa in the name of the important Rabbi Simeon: The Passover sacrifice which was fully roasted one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes.

“One does not put bread dough into the oven.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Assi: Women are more careful with bread than with dishes. What is the difference between bread and dish? A dish one usually eats hot, bread one usually does not eat hot. There, they say, hot bread is accompanied by fever. A wasp, cold; a scorpion, hot. He who switches is in danger.

Rabbi Eliezer agrees that the showbread is not called bread until it develops a crust in the oven.

Mishnah

11 One hangs the Passover lamb into the oven when it gets dark. One starts a fire at the fire place in the heating chamber, but outside the Temple only if the fire has started burning on most of the logs. Rabbi Judah says, on charcoal any amount.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “One hangs the Passover lamb into the oven,” etc. There, we have stated: “At nightfall they went out and roasted their Passover sacrifices.” And you are saying so? Rabbi Yose said, groups are careful.

The Passover sacrifice you return whole, you do not return it carved. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Because of its invalidity. Rabbi Yose said, this is correct. You cannot eat it for it is written, do not eat from it raw. You cannot roast it for he should not be roasting it on the Sabbath. If you are telling him that he may do it, he will not roast it completely when it still is daylight. Since you tell him that it is prohibited, he will roast it completely when it is still daylight. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose asked, if he roasted it whole and carved it up, may he go back and heat it?

Rabbi Zeira, Rav Judah in the name of Rav: Four pyres are in a minimal amount. A pyre of pressed-out olives, a pyre of manure, a pyre of fat, a pyre of pits are in a minimal amount.

Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: A willow basket full of pits is in a minimal amount. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: A willow basket full of pits, if they are collection, by their majority; if they are distributed, by the majority of each heap. Do they disagree? Here fat ones, there lean ones.

Rabbi Yose in the name of Rav Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥananiah bent it in the name of Rav: Cuttings from date palms below and wood on top, when the fire appears between them it is permitted.

Rabbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rav Huna: A log and most of it by the majority of its circumference. What is meant by the majority of its circumference? At one place or at most of its entire surface area? It was found stated: Until it became unfit for work.

This is how the Mishnah reads: Also on charcoals any amount.

Mishnah

1 With what may one kindle and with what may one not kindle? One kindles neither with bast, nor with raw flax, nor with silk noil, nor with tow-cotton, nor with desert wick, nor with green from the surface of water; not with pitch, nor with wax, nor with qīq oil, nor with oil to be burned, nor with fat tail, nor with fat. Naḥum the Mede says one may kindle with cooked fat, but the Sages say whether cooked or uncooked one does not kindle with it.

Halakhah

“With what may one kindle and with what may one not kindle? One kindles neither with bast.” Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, lygos. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Lia, dadinon. They said, these two are identical.

“Nor with raw flax,” Rabbi Ḥinena in the name of Rabbi Phinehas, flax which was not cleansed, as you say, “the uncleaned flax will be tinder.”Isaiah 1:31

“Nor with silk noil,” imperial anbin. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I asked all seafarers and they told me that it is called kulka.

“Nor with tow-cotton,” ʿīrānītā.

“Nor with desert wick,” as its meaning.

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

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

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Because the fire is not drawn after it and he forgets and removes the wick; and in addition because the fire was not kindled on most of the fuel. Rabbi Zeira asked, does this mean that the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel? There came Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel. The colleagues objected, is there not wax where the fire does not have to reach most of the fuel? Rabbi Abba bar Mamal objected, is there not a lantern where the fire does not have to reach most of the fuel? Rabbi Shammai said, did not Rabbi Zeira, Rav Judah say in the name of Rav: Four pyres are in a minimal amount. A pyre of pressed-out olives, a pyre of manure, a pyre of fat, a pyre of pits are in a minimal amount. Also from the following, that Rabbi Taḥlifa asked Rav Ḥisda, did not the rabbi teach us, on a Sabbath which happened during Ḥanukkah, when it is forbidden to check a coin in the Ḥanukkah light; there he will not forget and remove the wick. Therefore the reason can only be that the kindling of the wick has to reach most of the fuel.

Mishnah: “Nor with qīq oil.” Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Lia, kissos. Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Judah, it is a bird by the name of qīq. Rabbi Ishmael stated, “and the qāât,” this is the qīq.

“Nor with oil to be burned.” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is forbidden to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath. But have we not stated: “One starts a fire at the fire place in the heating chamber, but outside the Temple only if the fire has started burning on most of the logs.” Rabbi Yose said, it is written about the Sabbath, “do not do any work”Exodus 20:10; it is done automatically. But here the Torah said that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, not to speak of the Sabbath. What did you see that you said so? “You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire.”Exodus 12:10 After two mornings, one the morning of the 15 and the other the morning of the 16. And it is written, “what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day.”Leviticus 7:17

May one light a fire under a pyre of leavened material? For him who infers it from remainder, it is forbidden. But for him who does not infer it from remainder, it is permitted. Rav Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥisda: this implies that it is permitted to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath. But did we not state, “one does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday,” because of a holiday which falls on Friday. But then one should not light oil to be burned in the night since one does not burn sancta in the night! Rabbi Joḥanan said, they followed the argument of Rabbi Ishmael. Just as Rabbi Ishmael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night. Where do you have oil to be burned whose time has passed? Rabbi Judah bar Pazi: Since it became impure it is as if its time had passed.

Rabbi Yose stated before Rabbi Joḥanan: How do we know that all those to be circumcised should only be circumcised during daytime? The verse says, “And on the day.”Leviticus 12:3 Rabbi Joḥanan told him, is that so? All who require immersion immerse themselves normally during daytime except for the woman after her period and one who gave birth who only immerses herself during the night. A woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba preached this to the people of Tyre, a woman after her period whose time has passed immerses herself either during the day or during the night. There they say, even one whose time has passed, because of her mother-in-law and her daughter-in-law. They saw a woman of our rabbis immersing herself normally during daytime. We will say that her time had passed.

A woman after her period who was immersed by accident, Shammai in the name of Rav: she is pure for her house but impure for purities. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina, she is impure both for her house and purities. What is the reason? “It should be washed a second time and will be pure.” Since the first time it was intentionally, also the second time it must be intentionally. And from where that the first time it was intentionally? “The priest has to order that they should wash.”Leviticus 13:54 Intentionally.

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

“An Israelite woman who comes to a priestly woman to get fire dips her wick into oil to burn and lights.” Rabbi Ḥuna in the name of the house of Rabbi Yannai: It was a time of wolf packs; there was no court which disestablished. As it was said there, there was no court which disestablished. And here was no court which disestablished.

“If cattle of a priest was passing at an Israelite’s, or the garment of a priest being woven at an Israelite’s, he lights for this oil to burn without hesitation. If an Israelite and a priest were partners in a store, the Israelite may fill the lamp with oil to burn and go to the upper floor or down into the store in the business of the priest, but not the Israelite’s. If a priest came to an Israelite to help him with his accounts and he lit oil to burn for him, even after the priest left one does not require him to extinguish it before it burns out by itself.” Rabbi Ḥanania from Akhbar worked at Rabbi Ḥiyya’s from Sepphoris. When he left, the latter filled him a lamp full of oil to burn. Were we not of the opinion to say, “to work for a priest, but not for an Israelite”? They said, if he had not done this for him, he would not have come. They thought, when he arrived at his house, he had to extinguish it. Rabbi Ḥinena said, by this he awoke, by this he got up early.

Ada the nurse asked Rabbi Immi: Since I am dipping wicks at a sick person’s? He said to him, it becomes insignificant in the wick. Rabbi Judah ben Pazi instructed those of Bar Neḥemiah in this way. Rabbi Immi took a wick, Rabbi Ila did not take a wick. Did Rabbi Ila not agree with Rabbi Immi? Rabbi Ila thought because of robbery because the nurse will spoil the consecrated food.

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

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

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

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

Mishnah

2 One does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday. Rabbi Ishmael says, one does not kindle with ʿiṭran because of the honor of the Sabbath. But the Sages permit all kinds of oil, sesame oil, nut oil, radish oil, fish oil, colocynth oil, ʿiṭran, and naphtha. Rabbi Tarfon says, one kindles only with olive oil.

Halakhah

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

“Rabbi Ishmael says, one does not kindle with ʿiṭran because of the honor of the Sabbath.” What is the difference between ʿiṭran and innards of fish? Innards of fish are not smelling badly as long as they are burning; they are smelling badly when extinguished. ʿIṭran smells badly whether extinguished or burning. Since it smells badly one should need to distance himself four cubits; therefore it is necessary to say “one does not kindle.”

“But the Sages permit all kinds of oil.” State: colocynth oil.

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

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

Mishnah

3 One does not kindle with any wood product but flax. No wood product may become impure by tent impurity but flax. A wick braided from textile which was threaded but not singed, Rabbi Eliezer says it may become impure and one does not use it to kindle; Rabbi Akiva says it does not become impure and one may use it to kindle.

Halakhah

Mishnah. “One does not kindle with any wood product but flax,” etc. Rabbi Simeon bar Rav Isaac said it is written: “to raise permanent light.”Exodus 27:20 They estimated to say that nothing makes a flame like flax. It was stated: “Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, no wood product is subject to the three-by-three rule except flax and one may use it as roofing, except flax.” Rabbi Yose said, they made it like coarse or soft, as we have stated: “the coarse and the soft are not subject to the three-by-three rule.” Rabbi Eleazar said, they learned it from the Tabernacle as it is written, “the Sanctuary you shall make ten curtains, twisted fine linen;”Exodus 26:1 and it is written, “linen turbans shall be on their heads.”Ezekiel 44:18 You learn fine linen from fine linen, and fine linen from turbans, and turbans from turbans.

Rabbi Eleazar asked, may one make the Tent of leather from an impure animal? But is it not written, “and taḥaš skins.”Exodus 25:5 Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Nehemiah and the rabbis. Rabbi Judah says, violet; it was called thus because of its color. Rabbi Nehemiah said, blue. But the rabbis say, a kind of pure animal which grows up in the desert. It comes like what Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Meir 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. Rabbi Abun said, its name was qereš. Rabbi Hoshaiah stated, a unicorn. “It is preferable to the Eternal over a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves.”Psalms 69:31 The All-Merciful wrote, it sprouts a horn.

There, we have stated: “A cloth less than three by three fingerwidths which he took to plug the bath or to pour a pot or to clean a millstone, whether it was prepared or not prepared can become impure, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joshua says, also a new rag whether prepared or not prepared, is pure. Rabbi Akiva says, prepared it may become impure, not prepared it is pure.” What is the difference between prepared and not prepared? Whether he made it ready in the house or threw it into the garbage. But did we not state: “Rabbi Eliezer says, also a new rag follows the same rule.” Nobody says “also,” “even,” unless he agree with the preceding; whether he prepared it to hang it up or did not prepare it to hang it up. This learns from the other and the other learns from this. This learns from the other; the words of Rabbi Eliezer if he folded it. And the other learns from this; if he did not prepare it to hang it up. But if he prepared it to hang it up it may become impure.

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

Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Simeon the nazir: If he made it into a bandage it is pure. If one dipped it in oil is it not as if he made a bandage? Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Yannai, Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, logically practice should follow Rabbi Akiva who is similar to both, but in fact it follows Rabbi Joshua who is lenient in the matter of three-by-three. Not only pure but even impure, because of Rav, since Rav said one heats with vessels, but one does not heat with pieces of vessels.

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

“A person may not pierce an eggshell.” Why? Because it did not start at each single drop, or maybe he might forget and stir? What is the difference between them? This refined diqlon. If you are saying, because it did not start at each single drop, it did not stop at every single drop; if you say, maybe he might forget and stir, he will not forget and stir.

“If the potter combined it from the outset it is permitted since it is one vessel.” There is a difference because all is one, if he combined it by lime or gypsum. Rabbi Judah follows his own opinion since Rabbi Judah says moist liquid is a connection. It was stated: One wick in two cups, in two pots, in two trays is forbidden; Rabbi Judah permits. Rabbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rabbi Phinehas: Rabbi Judah follows his own opinion since Rabbi Judah says moist liquid is a connection.

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

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

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

Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon said the same thing. Just as Rabbi Yose said, not unless he needs the body of the wick, so Rabbi Simeon says, not unless he needs the body of the thing. How do you need the body of the wick? The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: for so the professional waiters singe in this way, as you say, “and the hair on their heads was not singed.”Daniel 3:27 What is meant by “singe in this way”? They singe it.

There, we have stated: “All who destroy are not liable,” except the incendiary and one causing an injury. Bar Qappara said, even if he did not need the blood, even if he did not need the ashes. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable, but if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable.” If his bull set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath; he is liable. Is that not for no purpose? So here if he set fire to a stack of sheaves on the Sabbath, he is not liable, even if it was for no purpose. Rabbi Ḥanania the son of Rabbi Hillel said, since it was for no purpose, did he commit a capital crime? But here even it was for no purpose he should be free from paying restitution, from the following: “The slayer of an animal shall pay for it; the slayer of a human shall die.”Leviticus 24:21 Since for the slayer of an animal you did not differentiate between unintentional and intentional to make him liable for money, so for the slayer of a human you cannot differentiate between unintentional and intentional to free him from liability for money.

It is difficult for Bar Qappara. Setting fire taught about all work mentioned in the Torah; they are all for a need, itself not for a need? Rabbi Yose said, if Rabbi Eleazar would think with Rabbi Joḥanan who said, setting fire taught about all work mentioned in the Torah. Rabbi Eleazar said, setting fire taught about itself. Does Rabbi Eleazar not have “about one”Leviticus 4:2 to make him liable for each single one? It was found stated in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, of these, to make him liable once for all of them. We understand setting fire. A wound? Its main point for a need, itself not for a need? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joḥanan disagree. One said, slaughter is the main point and a wound derivative; the other one switches.

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

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

An outsider who officiated in the Temple on the Sabbath, or a deformed person who officiated in impurity, the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya said, two; bar Qappara said, one. Bar Qappara objected to the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya: is the outsider liable for any service which is permitted to a priest? He objected and he answered it. Is there not the handful; before the handful was taken it was forbidden for both; after the handful was taken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to priests? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: “no outsider may eat sanctified food.”Leviticus 22:10 Is there not the breaking of the neck; before the neck was broken it was forbidden for both; after the neck was broken it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to priests? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: “no outsider may eat sanctified food.” Is there not the tevel; before it was put in order it was forbidden for both; after it was put in order it is forbidden for outsiders and permitted to priests? He said to him, there is a difference, for it is written: “no outsider may eat sanctified food.” They said, let us go outside and learn. They went outside and heard, Rabbi Yose said, two; Rabbi Simeon said, one. He who said one, because of outsider status. He who said two, one because of outsider status; why the other? Because of slaughter. But slaughter by an outsider is valid! But because bringing, sprinkling, and receiving. These are only because of Sabbath rest. Therefore the reason may be only because of the consumption of limbs and fat which were consumed on the altar during the entire night. In the opinion of Rabbi Judah who said because of setting fire it is understandable. In the opinion of Rabbi Yose who said because of cooking, what cooking is here? Since he wants their being consumed it is like cooking.

Mishnah

6 Because of three sins women die in childbirth, because they are not careful with niddah, ḥallah, and candle lighting.

Halakhah

“Because of three sins women die in childbirth,” etc. There are Tannaim who state, as children. There are Tannaim who state, in childbirth. He who said as children, it was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: Children die because of the sin of vows. What is the reason? “For the vain I did hit your sons.”Jeremiah 2:30 But he who said in childbirth, from here that Satan accuses only in times of danger.

Rabbi Phinehas, Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is written, “before Eleazar the priest he shall stand and ask him about the judgment of the illuminati.”Numbers 27:21 It is not written “in the order of the illuminati” but “about the judgment of the illuminati.” This teaches that at the moment when Israel goes to war the Heavenly Court sits because of them, whether to be victorious or to be vanquished. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, it is written, “if you camp out against your enemies, guard yourself from every bad thing.”Deuteronomy 23:9 Therefore if he does not go out he does not have to guard himself. But from here that Satan accuses only in times of danger.

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

Rabbi Bisna in the name of Rabbi Lia: It is written, “a day of affliction, and admonition, and insult is this day.” Therefore not another day. But from here that Satan accuses only in times of danger.

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

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

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

Rabbi Levi said, at three places the Satan usually accuses: one who is on the road alone, one who sleeps in a dark house alone, and one who sets sail on the ocean. Rabbi Isaac bar Marion said, if it had not been written, “so says the Eternal Who makes a path in the Sea,”Isaiah 43:16 if a person would set out on it he would die. But the rabbis say, “Who makes a path in the Sea,” from Pentecost to Tabernacles, “and in great waters a trail,” from Tabernacles to Ḥanukkah. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Tanḥum from Kefar Agin a case was in Essia. He wanted to set sail between Tabernacles and Ḥanukkah. A matron saw him and said to him, now one sets sail? His father appeared to him, “but he had no burial”Ecclesiastes 6:3; he listened to neither and traveled by sea. Rabbi priest the brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was a sailor. He came to sail between Tabernacles and Ḥanukkah. He said to his brother, pray for me. He answered him yes, I prayed for you, but if you see the public praying for rain do not trust my prayer. Since you bound your lulav, bind your feet.

Mishnah. “Because they are not careful with Niddah, and ḥallah, and candle lighting.” The First Man was the blood of the world, as is written, “mist would arise from the land.”Genesis 2:6 Eve caused him death, therefore they handed the commandment of Niddah to the woman.

“And ḥallah.” The First Man was the pure ḥallah of the world, as is written, “the Eternal, God, created man, dust from the earth.”Genesis 2:7 This comes as Rabbi Yose ben Qasarta said, when the woman agitates her dough in water she lifts her ḥallah. Eve caused him death, therefore they handed the commandment of ḥallah to the woman.

“And candle lighting.” The First Man was the light of the world, as is said, “God’s light is Adam’s soul.”Proverbs 20:27 Eve caused him death, therefore they handed the commandment of the light to the woman. It was stated: Rabbi Yose says, there are three clingings of death and all three were handed to woman: These are they, the commandment of Niddah, the commandment of ḥallah, and the commandment of lighting the light.

Mishnah

7 Three things a person has to say in his house Friday afternoon before it gets dark: Did you give tithe, did you make an eruv, kindle the light! If there is a doubt whether it is dark or not dark one does not tithe what is certain, nor immerse vessels, not kindle lights, but one may tithe what is questionable, and make an eruv, and store away hot food.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “Three things a person has to say in his house,” etc. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, the practices of sancta, and purifying waters, and preparations for impurity, are of the most important practices and all three have been handed over to the am haʾaretz. The practices of sancta, as we have stated: “If he said, I separated into it a quartarius of sanctum, he must be believed.” Purifying waters, as we have stated: “Everybody is trustworthy about purifying water.” Preparations for impurity, as we have stated: “About all these the am haʾaretz is trustworthy to say that they are pure.”It should have been necessary: Kindle the light, did you give tithe, did you make an eruv, kindle? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, since you are strict with him for the easier rules he will be strict with himself with the weighty one. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac commanded his house, did you make an eruv, did you kindle the light? Why did he not say, did you give tithe? Because all he ate, he ate from the market.

Mishnah: “If there is a doubt whether it is dark or not dark,” etc. It happened that Rabbi Eliezer was dying on a Friday when it got dark. His son Hyrcanus entered to remove his phylacteries. He told him, my son, you neglected the commandment of the light which is for the Sabbath and for which one incurs extirpation and you came to remove phylacteries which is only rabbinical and is only a positive commandment. He left crying and said, woe to me that my father has lost his mind. He told him, your mind is lost, my mind is not lost. When his students saw that he answered him wisely they entered to him and started asking him. He answered on the impure impure and the pure pure; at the end he said “pure” and his soul vanished. They said, it is clear that our teacher is pure. Rabbi Mana said, it still is clear. Rabbi Joshua entered, removed his phylacteries, was embracing him, and kissing him, and crying, and said, my teacher, my teacher, the vow has been dissolved; my teacher, “chariot of Israel and its riders.”2 Kings 2:12

Mishnah: “nor immerse vessels.” Our Mishnah is about large vessels but for small vessels one may be clever about them and immerse them. Rabbi Hoshaiah stated, a person may fill an impure vessels from a cistern, be clever about it and immerse it. It was stated: If his pail fell into a cistern, or his vessels fell into a cistern, he may be clever about them and immerse them. Two Amoraim, one said, about vessels impure in original impurity; the other said, about vessels impure in derivative impurity. He who said in original impurity objected to the one who said in derivative impurity, even on a weekday it would require sundown? He answered him, if he wants to use them to eat profane food in purity.

Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi. A deft woman will rinse a cup here, a pot there, a plate there and end up watering down her house on the Sabbath.

Mishnah: “But one may tithe what is questionable.” Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Judah bar Pazi: “maybe it was put in order, maybe it was not put in order.”

“And make an eruv, and store away hot food.” Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, this is about eruv of courtyards. But eruvim of domains are a matter of biblical law.

Mishnah

1 If a cooking stove was heated with straw or stubbles one may put a dish on it, with olive cake or wood he should not put it on unless he emptied or covered it with ashes. The House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish, but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. The House of Shammai say one takes away but may not return it but the House of Hillel say one even may return.

Halakhah

“If a cooking stove was heated,” etc. This is how the Mishnah reads: “one keeps a dish on it.” The Mishnah is Rabbi Judah’s, as it was stated: “If there were two coordinated cooking stoves, one emptied or covered with ashes, the other one neither emptied nor covered with ashes, one keeps on the one emptied or covered with ashes. What does one keep on it? The House of Shammai say, one does not keep anything on it. But the House of Hillel say, hot water but no dish. If he removed the hot water pot everybody agrees that he should not return it, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, the House of Shammai say, hot water but no dish; but the House of Hillel say, hot water and dish. If he removed the hot water pot, the House of Shammai say he should not return it, but the House of Hillel say, he may return it.”

Rabbi Ḥelbo, Rav Anan in the name of Rav: it only said “on top of it.” Therefore not into it. How far? Ulla said, up three hand breadths. Rabbi Mana said, up to where he would make an impression. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, because he has mastery at a place where the hand has mastery. This comes as what Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Judah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand has mastery but it is forbidden at a place where the hand has no mastery.

Rabbi Joshua the son of the circumciser was serving Rabbi Zeira; he brought him piping hot dishes. He asked him, how was this done? He told him, I cleaned out the stove and put it on top. He told him, you should not do this but clean out the stove, take three stones and cast it on them.

Rabbi Abbahu instructed in Bostra: One fills a vessel with hot ashes, puts on top three stones, and casts on them.

Daniel the son of Rabbi Qaṭina in the name of Rabbi Assi: spines of palm branches are like olive cake and wood. That is, if they had been moist and dried out. But if they were dry from the start they are like straw and stubbles.

Animal droppings. There are Tannaim who state, like olive cake and wood; and there are Tannaim who state, like straw and stubbles. He who says like olive cake and wood, small cattle. And he who says like straw and stubbles, large cattle.

One who empties, only if he empties completely, since it was stated: he who empties has to scratch out by hand. This implies that he has to empty completely. If one covers with ashes, does he have to cover completely? Since it was stated: when he kindled flax tow over it, this implies even if he did not completely cover it with ashes. When was this said? On a holiday which happens to fall on Friday; Rabbi Ashian said, one kindles flax tow over it.

If he covered it with ashes and it started burning, what? The Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya went to his house and instructed: it is permitted. They asked Rabbi Zeira, and Rabbi Hoshaiah, and Rabbi Ḥanania the colleagues of the rabbis, “it started burning,” in the past. Rabbi Immi passed by; the colleagues were scattered; then they wanted to return to it. Rabbi Ḥanania the colleague of the rabbis said to them, as the case happened so it happened. Rabbi Samuel bar Sisartai said, it is questionable for the future. Rabbi Mana said, I objected to Rabbi Abba the son of Rabbi Pappaios: If you say for the past, even if he did not cook on it earlier.

As it was stated: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if it was done unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath, intentionally it may not be eaten. Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, unintentionally it may be eaten at the end of the Sabbath by others but not by himself, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” Samuel followed Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. When Rav was instructing his own group he said following Rabbi Meir; in public he instructed following Rabbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian. Rabbi Simeon bar Karsana said, he explained to us following Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose, as it was stated: “Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose said in his father’s name, in any case where for an intentional sin one is liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin for a purification offering, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result is forbidden both to him and to others. In any case where for an intentional sin one is not liable for extirpation and an unintentional sin no purification offering is due, if it was committed on the Sabbath unintentionally or intentionally, the result unintentional it may be eaten by others after the end of the Sabbath but not by him, intentionally neither by him nor by others.” They asked Rabbi Joḥanan, what do you say? He said, I have only the Mishnah: “He who tithes or cooks on the Sabbath, if in error it may be eaten, if intentionally it may not be eaten.” Rav Ḥisda heard this and said, the Sabbaths have been permitted! Rav Huna in the name of Rav, and Rabbi Ḥiyya stated thus: “In earlier times they said, one who forgets some dish on his stove on the Sabbath, unintentionally it may be eaten, intentionally it may not be eaten. People were suspected that they left it intentionally and said, it was forgotten; they forbade it to them when it was forgotten.” And here, you say so? Rabbi Ila said, they were suspected to leave it on, they were not suspected to cook. They imposed a fine for forgetting but not for cooking.

“They came back to say, a dish which will improve the more it shrinks is forbidden; a dish which will deteriorate the more it shrinks is permitted. What is a dish which improves the more it shrinks? For example cabbage, peas, and chopped meat.” Rabbi Tanḥum bar Illa said, they also considered heads of beets and heads of of leeks as dishes which improve the more they shrink. What about eggs? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose: My father came home and found hot water and permitted it, eggs and forbade them. Rabbi Samuel bar Natan in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: I went with my father to Ḥammat Gader where they brought before us eggs small like crab apples and they tasted delicious like sweetbread.

It was stated: “A woman should not fill a pot with ʿassisiot and lupines and put them into the oven at the start of the Sabbath, at nightfall. If she did, they are forbidden after the end of the Sabbath until the time they could have been done.” Rabbi Aḥa said: intentionally, following Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Yose said: unintentionally, following Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Mana said, what my teacher Rabbi Yose said is correct: “He who is planting on the Sabbath, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out. In the Sabbatical year, he must tear it out whether planting was unintentional or intentional. Rabbi Judah says, it is the other way around. If he was planting on the Sabbath he must tear it out whether it was unintentional or intentional; in the Sabbatical, if unintentional, he may keep it, if intentional, he must tear it out. Why? Because the profit of the Sabbath is forbidden to him.” And here, since you say that after the end of the Sabbath he has to wait until the time it could have been done, he did not gain anything from the Sabbath. What is the rabbis’ reason? People are suspected about the Sabbatical but not about the Sabbath. Another explanation: One counts Sabbaticals, one does not count Sabbaths. What is this about? If somebody planted less than thirty days before the Sabbatical and now it is the Sabbatical, if it is because of suspicion, there is no suspicion; if it is for counting, it is not counted. Less than thirty days before the eighth year and now it is the eighth year, if it is because of suspicion, there is suspicion; if it is because of counting, there is counting. It follows him who says because of suspicion, but for him who says because of counting they fined the unintentional because of the intentional.

If he took it when it still was daylight he may return it when it still is daylight. If he took it after dark he may return if after dark. If he took it when it still was daylight and the day became holy for him? Rabbi Simon bar Thaddeus in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: If he had put it down on the ground it is forbidden to move it. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: I was serving the Great Rabbi Ḥiyya and I brought him hot water from the lower to the upper apartment and returned it to the stove. Rabbi Jeremiah ben Rabbi Simeon said, even from a stove with little heat to a stove with much heat Rabbi Immi said, many times I was sitting before Rabbi Hoshaiah but this I never heard from him. Rabbi Zeriqan said to Rabbi Zeira, he did not hear from him that it was permitted; therefore it is forbidden.

If it was hanging from a peg, or it was put on a footstool. Should we say if it was as if on coals it is permitted and if not it is forbidden? Rabbi Joḥanan ben Rabbi Marius said, if he did not remove his hand from it. But if he removed his hand from it it is forbidden.

Mishnah

2 If an oven was heated with straw or stubbles one may not put anything inside it or on its back. If a single burner was heated with straw or stubbles it is like a cooking stove, with olive cake or wood it is like an oven.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “If an oven was heated with straw or stubbles,” etc. Bar Qappara stated: It is even forbidden to lean against it. Rabbi Shammai leaned against the air space of the oven. Rabbi Mana told him, did not Bar Qapprara state: It is even forbidden to lean against it?

Rabbi Mana cursed women who spread out their dresses over the airspace of the oven. Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Ishmael with difficulty instructed to clean out the oven, laid there three stones and put on them; only that the neighboring women should not know of this. Rabbi Yose said, for the Sabbath you go by the heat; for impurity you go after the closure.

Mishnah

3 One may not put an egg next to the hot water container to make it soft boiled and he may not break it on tissue, but Rabbi Yose permits. One should not bury it in dust of roads that it should be roasted. What the people of Tiberias did was to divert a jet of cold water into a canal of hot water. The Sages told them if this is on a Sabbath this is like hot water which was heated on the Sabbath; it is forbidden for washing and drinking. But if it is on a holiday it is like water heated on the holiday; it is forbidden for washing but permitted for drinking. From a cleaned-out cooking vessel one drinks on the Sabbath; from an Antiochean vessel one does not drink even if it is cleaned out.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “One may not put an egg next to the hot water container,” etc. There, we have stated: “If a mashed apple is added to dough which soured, the dough is forbidden.” It was stated: Rabbi Yose permits it. Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They disagree when it becomes sour from the juice of the apple. But if it becomes sour from its solid substance it is permitted. Rabbi Yose follows his own opinion. Just as he says there, its souring is not clearly souring, so he says here, its cooking is not clearly cooking.

It was stated: Rabbi Joḥanan ben Rabbi Marius said, if he did not remove his hand from it. But if he removed it it is forbidden. An unripe fig which he hid in straw or a flat pita which he hid in coals may be taken on the Sabbath if they were partially uncovered, otherwise they may not be taken. Rabbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus said, in any case he can stick in a spit or a knife and take it. This statement of Rabbi Eleazar ben Thaddeus follows Rabbi Simeon, as we have stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rabbi Simeon permits.”

Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥuna, Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rabbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Since you are saying, it is permitted to move it, similarly it is permitted to return it. Rabbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, this is Rabbi Simeon’s. Rabbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any implement except a cart because it presses.”

But we have stated: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rabbi Simeon? He explains “the Sabbatical year” following Rabbi Simeon since Rabbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here you say so? Even though Rabbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the Sabbatical year and the holiness of the Sabbatical year. Also we have stated for Rabbi Simeon who declares it pure so it cannot become impure, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!

There, they say, the sun is permitted, a derivative of the sun is forbidden. The rabbis here say, both the sun and derivatives of the sun are permitted. Our Mishnah disagrees with the rabbis here: “One should not bury it in dust of roads that it should be roasted.” There is a difference, because he makes a groove. If it had said “flour” it would have been correct. A baraita disagrees with the rabbis there, as it was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one soft-boils eggs on a boiling hot whitewashed roof but one does not soft-boil eggs in boiling hot dust.” What do the rabbis there do with this? They explain that they disagree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. In the opinion of the rabbis there, “what the people of Tiberias did.” In the opinion of the rabbis here the Mishnah was finished. “As to what the people of Tiberias did.”

Mishnah: “What the people of Tiberias did,” etc. Originally they closed the conduit on Friday and they entered and bathed on the Sabbath. They were suspected of filling it with wood on Friday so it would burn continuously on the Sabbath; they forbade them bathing and permitted sweating. They were suspected of coming and bathing but saying “we were sweating.” They forbade bathing and sweating to them. If there were there two basins, one of sweet water and one of salt water. They were suspected of uncovering the planks and bathing in sweet water but saying, “we did bathe in salt water;” they forbade them everything. When they were fenced in they continuously permitted them more until they permitted them water in a cave and the hot springs of Tiberias, but they did not permit bringing towels. Who permitted the bringing of linen cloths? Rabbi Ḥanina ben Aqabia, as it was stated: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Aqabia permitted three things. He permitted seaweed, he permitted the balcony, and he permitted bringing linen cloths.

There, we have stated: “If somebody bathes in a cave or in the waters of Tiberias he may dry himself even with ten linen towels but may not bring them in his hand.” Samuel said, what should an opinionated person do who never studied and never served? This Mishnah was before they permitted to bring linen towels. Rabbi Jeremiah and Rabbi Zeira, Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: Rabbi permitted linen towels. It was stated: One takes a shower neither with hot water nor with cold water. Rabbi Judah bar Pazi said, this baraita was before the Sages permitted the hot springs of Tiberias, as it was stated: One who bathes in the hot springs of Tiberias may sprinkle on himself, but others may not sprinkle on him. Rabbi Simeon ben Menassia said, he may not even sprinkle on himself since he increases vapor and sweeps the floor.

Rabbi Aḥa bar Isaac went bathing with Abba bar Mamal at the Three Graces. He saw a man sprinkling on himself. He told him, in this way it is forbidden on the Sabbath since he increases vapor and sweeps the floor. Rabbi Abbahu said, others were sprinkling and it fell on him. He answered, but Rabbi Levontin went bathing with Rabbi Jonah. He saw a man sprinkling on himself. He told him, we do not have to be concerned about an isolated opinion.

The Elder Rabbi Isaac went bathing with Rabbi. He asked him, may one put a flask in the circle? He told him, put it in the draw-pot and it becomes a secondary vessel.

Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: One may ask about practice of the bath in the bathhouse and the practice of the toilet in the toilet. As the following: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar went bathing with Rabbi Meir. He asked him, how about drying oneself with a towel? He told him, it is forbidden. How about rinsing? He told him, it is forbidden. But did not Samuel ask Rav, may one say Amen at a dirty place? He told him: it is forbidden and it is forbidden for me to tell you it is forbidden. There was found a Tanna who stated: One does not ask about practice of the bath in the bathhouse and the practice of the toilet in the toilet.

“If it is on a holiday it is like water heated on the holiday,” etc. Hot water heated on a holiday and similarly hot water heated on Friday for the Sabbath, Rav and Samuel, one said, one uses it to wash his face, hands, and feet, while the other said, one uses it to wash his entire body limb by limb. We did not know who said what but since Samuel stated, one uses it to wash his face, hands, and feet, it follows that it was Rav who said, one uses it to wash his entire body limb by limb.

A philosopher asked Bar Qappara; Ablat asked Levi the eunuch: Is it permitted for drinking but forbidden for taking a bath? He told him, if you saw an eunuch embracing your wife, would you not feel badly about it? He said, yes. He asked him, can he squeeze her in any way? He said, that she should not get loose morals. He told him, here also that they should not get loose morals. After he left, his students told him, this one you pushed away with a stick; what do you answer us? He said to him them: Is there not already written “only what is being eaten by everybody, this alone may be made by you.”Exodus 12:16

“From a cleaned-out samowar one drinks on the Sabbath.” Therefore not if it was not cleaned out. Rabbi Ashian said, because the coals touch its body. Rabbi Ḥanina the son of Rabbi Hillel said, because the wind enters its body and the coals will burn. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, because it was made in pieces; he is afraid that its glue was weathered away and he adds water

“From an Antiochean vessel one does not drink even if it is cleaned out.” Rabbi Ḥananiah, Rabbi Yasa, Rabbi Aḥa Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, because it is heated from its walls. The rabbis of Caesarea, Rav Huna in the name of Rav: If it was cleaned out and open it is permitted.

Mishnah

4 One may not put cold water into a hot water container which was removed in order to heat it but one may put into it or into a cup to make it lukewarm.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “One may not put cold water into a hot water container which was removed,” etc. Rabbi Abba the son of the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: they stated this only for a cup, therefore not into itself. Rabbi Mana said, I objected to Rabbi Abba the son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rabbi Joḥanan could not have stated this on the first part of the Mishnah nor on the second part! “In order to heat it,” therefore to make it lukewarm is permitted. There came Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rabbi Rav. If to heat it, it is forbidden, if to make it lukewarm it is permitted.

It was stated: “One may add hot water to cold but not cold to hot, following the words of the House of Shammai. But the House of Hillel say, whether hot to cold or cold to hot it is permitted. When has this been said? Into a cup, but into a bathtub hot to cold is permitted but cold to hot is forbidden, and Rabbi Simeon ben Menassia permits.” Rav comes following Rabbi Simeon ben Menassia and Rabbi Joḥanan following Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. It was stated: “Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri forbids.” “A person may fill an amphora full of water and put it close to the pyre, not that it become hot but to disperse its coldness. A person may immerse himself in cold water, come out and warm himself next to the pyre, the words of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages forbid.” Rabbi Meir says it correctly; what is the rabbis’ reason? It should come as what Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Judah: It is permitted to make lukewarm at a place where the hand rules; it is forbidden to make lukewarm at a place where the hand does not rule. Even how far “where the hand does not rule”? Rabbi Judah bar Pazi, Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Up to where he puts his hand and it is burned.

Everybody agrees that a secondary vessel is permitted. What is the difference between a primary and a secondary vessel? Rabbi Yose said, here the hand rules, there the hand does not rule. Rabbi Jonah said, in neither case does the hand rule. But they forced distance for a primary vessel; they did not force distance for a secondary vessel. Mishnah: “Into a pan or a pot which was taken off the fire boiling,” etc. Rabbi Mana said, a pot of rice supports my father, a pot of groats supports my father, for you move them from place to place and they still are boiling hot.

Mishnah

5 Into a pan or a pot which was taken off the fire boiling one should not give spices but one may give them into the bowl or into the tray. Rabbi Judah says, one may put them in everything except what contains vinegar or fish sauce.

Halakhah

May one put spices at the bottom and pour on them from above? Rabbi Jonah said, it is forbidden and pouring confers the status of primary vessel. The force of Rabbi Jonah comes from this: “Both vessels used for cooking or into which it was poured boiling.” Rabbi Yose said, there a pottery vessel absorbs; spices are not cooked. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun objected: Did we not state, “the same holds for brass vessels.” Can one say that brass vessels absorb?

Can one pour in from a stream? Rabbi Ḥanina, the son of Rabbi Hillel, said, the disagreement of Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Isaac bar Gufta asked Rabbi Mana: If he did this on the Sabbath, is he guilty because of cooking? If he did this with meat and milk, is he guilty because of cooking? He said to him, parallel to what Rabbi Zeira said, what is certainly a dumpling? Only if fire burned underneath it. So here also, what is certainly a cooked dish? Only if fire burned underneath it.

“Rabbi Judah says, one may put them in everything except what contains vinegar or fish sauce.” In the opinion of Rabbi Judah, salt is like fish sauce and wine like vinegar.

Mishnah

6 One does not put a vessel under the light to catch the oil but when he put it there when it still was daylight it is permitted. One may not use it because it is not prepared.

Halakhah

“One does not put a vessel under the light to catch the oil but when he put it there when it still was daylight it is permitted. One may not use it because it is not prepared,” etc. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked, if it burned out when it still was day but he realized it only after it was dark? The colleagues asked: If it burned out on this Sabbath but he realized it only afterwards on the Sabbath? Rabbi Joḥanan said, nothing in its natural form is not prepared except one item. Rabbi Eleazar objected: Is not oil in the lamp in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the lamp. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish objected: Is not seed grain in its natural form, nevertheless it is not prepared! It was put there from the start to be used up in the ground. They objected: Are there not eggs used for chicks which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! They were put there from the start to become chicks. Rabbi Jeremiah objected: Are there not Sukkah decorations which are in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! There is a difference, as Rabbi Abba Mari, Rabbi Yose’s brother, said: For the seven days they become insignificant in the Sukkah. Afterwards they are prepared. Rabbi Ḥinena objected: Is not lint which was scattered in its natural state, nevertheless it is not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food. Rabbi Nasa objected, are there not figs put out to ferment, which dried but he did not touch, in their natural form, nevertheless they are not prepared! Here about vessels; what we said there about food.

Mishnah

7 One moves a new light but not a used one; Rabbi Simeon says one may move any light except one which was burning on the Sabbath.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “One moves a new light but not a used one;” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Did we not state, “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down”? They said, this is the one of Rabbi Joḥanan.

As it was stated: “All lights may be moved except the light which was burning on the Sabbath, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, it is permitted to move a new light but forbidden to move an old one. Rabbi Simeon says, all lights may be moved except the light which was burning on the Sabbath; if it burned out it is permitted to move it.”

Rabbi Jeremiah and Rabbi Abba, both in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan. One said, the words of Rabbi Meir, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited. But the other one said, anything which one specified for something prohibited is prohibited. We did not know who said what. Since Rabbi Ḥanina Ḥanania said, Rabbi Jeremiah asked, is this brick lamp not specifically for something forbidden? This implies that he was the one who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited. The one who said specific, so much more if he specified. But he who said if he specified, not if it is specific.

A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated there: “Its undercarriage, if it can be separated it is not connected to it, will not be measured with it, does not protect in a tent with a corpse; one may not drag it on the Sabbath if it contains coins.” And it was stated for this, if there were coins on it but they fell off, it may be dragged. Rav Sheshet said, this is Rabbi Sineon’s since Rabbi Simeon said, “if it burned out it is permitted to move it.” They said, why do we not explain it according to everybody, if he forgot. You cannot do this, as we have stated there: “if it cannot be separated it is connected to it, will be measured with it, does protect in a tent with a corpse; one may drag it on the Sabbath even though it contains coins.” Can you say about this, it is according to everybody, if he forgot?

A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “If there is a stone on top of an amphora he tilts it on its side and it falls down.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: Rav explained this about one who forgot. Also from the sequel, “if it was between amphoras he lifts it, tilts it on its side and it falls down.” This also Rav explained about one who forgot.

A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down.” And it was stated about this, when they climbed on it by themselves it is forbidden to move it. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rabbi Zeira, explain it if it is disgusting. He told him, did not Rabbi Hoshaiah state, even a seah, even a three-qab. Can you say that seah and three-qab are disgusting?

Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Meir. Samuel said, practice follows Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, practice follows Rabbi Simeon. They asked Rabbi Joḥanan, you, what are you saying? He told them, I only have the Mishnah: “One may move any light except one which was burning on the Sabbath.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish instructed in al-Tarabulus, it is permitted to move a small light. Rabbi Ḥelbo and Rabbi Abbahu. Before Rabbi Ḥelbo they did not take away, before Rabbi Abbahu they took away. Rabbi Yasa visited Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya. He wanted to remove it before him. He told him, before us? Rabbi Yose the Galilean came before Yose ben Ḥanina; he wanted to take it away, he told him, who permitted you? It is found Rav and Rabbi Joḥanan, who forbid, are one. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, who permit, are one. Rabbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina: It happened and they moved a metal lamp instead of a pottery light on the Sabbath. Where do we hold? If following Rabbi Meir, even the metal lamp should be forbidden. If following Rabbi Simeon, even a pottery light should be permitted. But we are following Rabbi Judah since Rabbi Judah is the one who said, a pottery light is disgusting, a metal light is not disgusting.

It was stated: If a light was lying on a table he takes away the table and the light falls down. Rabbi Joḥanan said, this one is close to be liable for a purification sacrifice; forwards for setting a fire, backwards for extinguishing. Samuel bar Abba before Rabbi Yasa: when it was extinguished. He told him, may your mind be at rest. Where do we hold? If following Rabbi Meir, even the table should be forbidden. If following Rabbi Simeon, even the light should be permitted. But here following Rabbi Judah, since Rabbi Judah says, a pottery light is disgusting, a table is not disgusting.

It was stated: If he stipulated about it it will be permitted. Where do we hold? If following Rabbi Meir, even if he stipulated it should be forbidden. If following Rabbi Simeon, even if he did not stipulate it should be permitted. But here we hold following Rabbi Judah, since Rabbi Judah says, a pottery light is disgusting, a table is not disgusting. How did you come to say, we are holding with Rabbi Judah? As it was stated: If a light was lying behind a door one opens and closes on the Sabbath if only he not intend either to extinguish or to make it burn. Rav and Samuel explain it about one who forgot but cursed one who would do this; “May the Eternal extirpate the man who does this, awake and answering.”Malachi 2:12

Who has “anything which is specifically for something prohibited is prohibited,” not Rabbi Meir? Therefore, the one who stated “if he stipulated about it it will be permitted” was Rabbi Simeon. But a cup, or a bowl, or a lantern, even after they were extinguished it is forbidden to touch them. Rabbi Tabi in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Even Rabbi Simeon who there says it is permitted here he agrees that it is forbidden, for if you tell him that it is permitted he will extinguish them and use them.

Rabbi Mana said, earlier we were of the opinion to say, where do they disagree? When it was extinguished, if the rats had dragged the wick away, when it was compressed. But you may even say if the rats had not dragged the wick away, when it was not compressed, if it contained oil.

There, we have stated: “A man may carry his son with a stone in his hand, or a basket with a stone in it.” The House of Rabbi stated, food and stone in it, we do not say anything, for Rabbi Romanos brought out a pan from Rabbi’s house full of coals on the Sabbath. Could you say that coals are pressed? But it must have oil left in it. Rabbi Abbahu said, I confirmed it, cuts of fragrances were on it.

Rabbi Abba bat Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, it is forbidden to move a tarkos. Rabbi Immi instructed: it is permitted. Rabbi Jeremiah saw them moving it at the great assembly and did not object to them. In the House of Rabbi Yannai they said, up to three it is a chair, more than this a ladder. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he who permits follows Rabbi Simeon, as it was stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rabbi Simeon permits.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥuna, Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Ila: The Sages admit to Rabbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move on the Sabbath. Since you are saying, it is permitted to move it, similarly it is permitted to return it. Rabbi Yose said, we also have stated: “and they may be removed on the Sabbath.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, it is Rabbi Simeon’s. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, a Mishnah says so, “one may not drag any vessel except a cart because it presses.”

Rabbi Ḥuna in the name of Rabbi: It was said relating to the Sabbath. Ḥizqiah in the name of the House of Rabbi Yannai, it was said relating to presumptions. Rabbi Yose in the name of the House of Rabbi Yannai, it was said relating to impurity. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥinnena, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, it is permitted to move a small light. Is it not a vessel? Is not everything in the house prepared? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, explain it that he took it with him as merchandise, or it arrived Friday evening at nightfall, and you cannot infer anything.

Mishnah

8 One may put a vessel under the light to catch the sparks but one may not put water in it since he would extinguish.

Halakhah

Here you say, “one does not put a vessel under the light,” to catch sparks? “But one may not put water in it since he would extinguish.” And there you say, “one may put a vessel under the light”? Here he needs the oil but there he does not need the sparks.

“But one may not put water in it since he would extinguish.” Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: This is Rabbi Yose’s. We were of the opinion to say, where disagree Rabbi Meir what Rabbi Yose says and the rabbis? When he made a barrier of vessels. But not if he made a barrier of water. Since Rabbi Samuel said in the name of Rabbi Zeira: This is Rabbi Yose’s, it implies that there is disagreement even if he made a barrier of water.

Mishnah

1 In what does one store away and in what may one not store away? One does not store away in olive cake, nor in manure, nor in salt, nor in lime, nor in sand, whether moist or dry. Not in straw, nor in fibers, nor in grape pits, nor in grasses when they are moist but one may store away in them when dry. One may store away in garments, and produce, and pigeon wings, and flax residue, and in fine sawdust. Rabbi Judah forbids if it is fine and permits coarse.

Halakhah

“In what does one store away and in what may one not store away,” etc. Because these things are hot and produce heat; if he takes away and they cool in his hand he returns them and they add heat; therefore they forbade to store away in them following Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, for Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah said, “a box he tilts on its side and takes out.” But according to the rabbis there? For they say, if it was a vat it is permitted. And there we have stated “if there be doubt whether it is dark or not dark.” Because it was not dark; therefore if it is dark it is forbidden to store away in them. There, they are saying, because of the neglect of the house of study; Rabbi Abba said, because of the suspicion. For if you tell him that he is permitted he will not finish it completely when it still is daylight. Because you tell him that he is forbidden he will finish it completely when it still is daylight. What is the difference between them? To hide away snow and cold water. In Rabbi Abba’s opinion it is permitted, in the opinion of the rabbis there it is prohibited. They forbade hiding away because of the cooking stove; they forbade the cooking stove because of hiding away. They forbade a cooking stove which creates little heat because of a cooking stove which creates much heat. They forbade a completely cooked dish because of an incompletely cooked dish. They forbade hot water because of a completely cooked dish. They turned around and permitted hot water.

It was stated: One does not store away in hot ashes. Rabbi Zeira said, this implies that it is permitted to store away in cold ashes. As the following: Rabbi Yannai’s daughter was serving her father and brought him hot dishes. He asked her, how was this made? She told him, with a spade and it was hidden in olive cake. He said to her, you should not do this, but with a spade hide it in a box and put the box on the olive cake. Rabbi Zeira said, Rabbi Ḥanina disagrees with this. Rabbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Olive cake at the bottom and straw on both sides is forbidden, and Rabbi Yannai agrees.

Abbin asked: It he mixed them, what? Let us hear from the following: “One may store away in garments, and produce, and pigeon wings.” Rabbi Yose ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: This means, if they are not much rotten. But if they are much rotten it is forbidden to store away in them.

“Not in sand.” There, we have stated: “One puts it on sand in order to wait.” This sand heats the hot and cools the cold. Straw is like the holder of a deposit; what you give it it gives to you.

It is forbidden to store away in anything which one has to distance from a wall. Rabbi Yose said, since we have stated that one may store away in straw, it follows that one need not distance it from a wall. Rabbi Ḥaggai objected: Was it not stated, one who rents o house from his neighbor may not use it as storage for produce? Why? Not because of the chaff? Rabbi Ḥanania said, because of the rats. Rabbi Phinehas ben Rabbi Ḥanina said, if it were because of the rats then even a storage for anything. Rabbi Shammai objected, does one not distance rocks from the wall? Then rocks are forbidden to hide away in. Rabbi Yose said, it is not that rocks produce heat but they become rusty and destroy the bottom of the wall. But was it not stated: One does not store away in stones. Explain it as referring to silver ore. There are Tannaim who state, one does store in rocks, and there are Tannaim who state, one does not store. Rav Ḥisda said, he who says “one stores,” with gold or brass ore; he who says “one does not store,” with silver ore.

Not only if they are wet but even if they were dry and became wet, as these fibers; are these not like dry which became wet? Rabbi Joḥanan bar Shila: This implies that one who hides a cauldron must let it be missing a little in case he takes it up and it spills and heats. There, we stated: “The same holds for new olive cake but old one is pure.” What is new and what is old? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: New within 12 months, old after 12 months.

“One may store away in garments, and produce, and pigeon wings.” Rabbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah bar Ḥanina: This means, if they are not much rotten. But if they are much rotten it is forbidden to store away in them.

“And in flax residue, and in sawdust.” We have stated nesoret. In the House of Rabbi they stated neʿoret. This implies that both are the same.

Mishnah

2 One may store away in raw hides, which one may move, and in wool flakes, which one may not move. What does one do? He shakes the cover and they fall off. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, a box he tilts on its side and takes out, in case he takes it out and is unable to return it. But the Sages say, he takes and returns.

Halakhah

“One may store away in raw hides, which one may move.” Rabbi Judah ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: This you are saying if they are kept in the household. But if they are kept in storage this does not apply. “And in wool flakes, which one may not move.” Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Joḥanan: This you are saying if they are kept in storage. But if they are kept in the household this does not apply.

Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: One spreads a mat over rows of bricks on the Sabbath.

Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on a holiday one props it up against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one may cover it with a vessel. Rabbi Mana said, only if the vessel not touch the body of the egg.

Rabbi Hoshaiah stated: One may spread a sheet over a swarm of bees in the summer because of the sun, in the rainy season because of the rain. Is this following Rav? Following Samuel? Here on top, there below.

Rabbi Bisna in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: It is forbidden to move the weaver’s beam weaving fine cloth. The hunters were spreading traps and these were damaged by the sun. They came to ask Rav, may one move them? He told them, it is forbidden to touch them. Intend to put them under your heads and it is permitted for you to move them.

Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: log heads about which he had thought the day before may be moved. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose went up to the seder of Bar Ulla. There was a festive meal there and there were heads of logs there. They came and asked him, may one move them? He told them, if you had intention about them from yesterday it is permitted to move them, otherwise you are not permitted to move them.

Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Shaul stated: Fibers about which he thought the day before he is permitted to move. Rabbi Yose ben Shaul stated: A group of beams about which he thought the day before he is permitted to move. Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Jacob bar Idi, Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose. My father was a worker in raw hides. He told us, make a knot of the heads of shearings and you will be permitted to move them tomorrow. Ḥizqiah said, even if one made a tie. Rav said, palm branches which one cut to lie on them do not need to be tied, for tents they have to be tied. Rav Abba bar Ḥana said, both for lying down and for tents it needs tying. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, the tying of Rav for tents is not the same as the tying of Rav Abba bar Ḥana for vessels. The tying of Rav for tents, only if he ties down all thorns. The tying of Rav Abba bar Ḥana for vessels, if only the appellation of “vessel” applies. If you would say, only if he ties down all thorns, there would be no greater production than this.

Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A man never should refrain from going to the House of Study; since in Jabneh this question was asked many times, why is a Jordan skiff impure? Nobody answered anything until Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonos came and explained it in his city: Why is a Jordan skiff impure? Because one fills it with produce and transports it from dry land to the sea and from the sea to dry land. In addition he explained that palm branches which one cut both for lying down and for tents need tying. They objected, are there not the infrequent ones of Askalon? Rabbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, there is a difference since part of them are in the sea and part of them on dry land.

The statement of Rabbi Abba bar Ḥana follows Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina said, we were ascending with Rabbi to the Hot Springs of Gadara when he said to us, choose yourselves smooth stones; then you are permitted to move them tomorrow. Rabbi Zeira said, only if he chiseled. The colleagues say, only if he polished. The Sepphoreans say, only if he intends. Rabbi Joḥanan said, only if it falls under the designation of implement. You might say that Rav Ḥana bar Abba, and Rabbi Joḥanan, and Rabbi Jonathan are one opinion. Rav, and Rabbi Zeira, and Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose are one opinion. The Sepphoreans, and Rabbi Yose ben Shaul, and Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Shaul are one opinion. The collegues have no pairing.

Mishnah

3 If he did not cover it when it still was daylight he may not cover it when it is dark. If he covered it and it became uncovered, he is permitted to cover it. One may fill a pitcher and put it under the pillow or under the quilt.

Halakhah

If he took it when it still was daylight he may return it when it still is daylight. If he took it after dark he may return it after dark. If he took it when it still was daylight and the day became holy for him? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah: If the groove was unusable it is forbidden, but from stove to stove it is permitted, from what Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Joshua: I was serving the Great Rabbi Ḥiyya and I brought him hot water from the lower to the upper apartment and returned it to the stove. Rabbi Jeremiah ben Rabbi Simeon said, even from a stove with little heat to a stove with much heat.

From a stove to storing away is forbidden. From storing away to a stove is forbidden. From storing away to storing away is problematic.

If it was uncovered when it still was daylight he may cover it when it still is daylight. If it was uncovered after dark he may cover if after dark. If it was uncovered when it still was daylight and the day became holy for him? It was stated: One does not store hot water away after dark but one may add over it garments and vessels. How much must be on them that it be permitted to cover them? Rabbi Zeriqan in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Even a handkerchief. Rabbi Zeira said, but only something of use. Rabbi Ḥinena said, everything is useful. Rabbi Mattaniah said, this is correct. If somebody would take a rag and put it on his head in the cold, would this not conquer the cold?

Just as one may not store away hot water after nightfall, so one may not store away snow or cold water, but Rabbi permits. Samuel bar Abba objected to this first one; did we not state: “A person may fill a water pitcher and put it under the pillow or under the quilt.” But following Rabbi since Rabbi permits. Here for the moment, there to leave it.

Mishnah

1 With what may an animal go out and with what may it not go out? A camel may go out with a bridle, and a female camel with a nose ring, and a Lybian donkey with a bridle, and a horse with a chain, and all that have a chain may go out with the chain and may be drawn with the chain which may be sprinkled on and immersed in place.

Halakhah

“With what may an animal go out and with what may it not go out,” etc. “Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose stated in his father’s name: Four kinds of animals are drawn by the bridle: the horse, and the mule, the camel, and the donkey.” Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, and its sign, “so will be the plague of the horse,” the mule, the camel, “and the donkey,”Zechariah 14:15 Rav said, practice follows Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose.

“A Libyan donkey.” Some Tannaim state: “Not a lgdqs.” He who says libdyqos because of “Libyans and Nubians in His train.” He who says lgdqs, ambates. What is ambates? A donkey stallion.

Rabbi Jonah said, Rav Hoshaiah asked: Do proselytes from Libya have to wait three generations? Rabbi Jonah Ben Ṣeruya from Bostra said, from what we see that they call a green Egyptian bean Libyan but a dry one Egyptian, that means a proselyte from Libya has to wait three generations; it means that Libyan is identical with Egyptian. Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the student. The words of the Sages are that all kinds of mules are one.

Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: As one says in matters of prohibition “and so all other animals,” in matters of permission it is the same.

“And the horse with a chain.” But did we not state, all human decorations are impure but decorations of animals are pure? Explain it as a case where they are made to lead them. But then does it not make a groove? But following Rabbi Simeon, as it was stated: “A person may not drag a bed, or a chair, or a footstool, or a fauteuil, because he makes a groove, but Rabbi Simeon permits.” Rabbi Ḥinena said, like the following as it was stated: “a hinged door, a hinged mat, hinged lattice gates, one may open and lock on the Sabbath, and it is not necessary to say on a holiday.” It also was stated: “If a mat was tied to and hanging from a pillar, one may open and lock on the Sabbath, and it is not necessary to say on a holiday.”

“Which may be sprinkled on and immersed in place.” There, we have stated: “She may not immerse herself wearing them unless she relaxes them.” And here he says so? Rabbi Mana said, here if they are loose, there if they are tight.

Mishnah

2 A donkey may go out with its saddle cloth if it is tied to it. Rams may go out protected on their bellies; female sheep may go out with their tail bound high, or bound low, or wrapped, and goats tied. Rabbi Yose prohibits all these except wrapped female sheep. Rabbi Judah says goats may go out tied to dry but not for milk.

Halakhah

Mishnah. “A donkey may go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. Samuel said, if it was tied to it from before the Sabbath. Ḥanin from Gophtia said before Samuel, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi does not act like this. He told him, Rav uses kleisterin, as it was stated: rams go out with kleisterin. Rabbi Aḥa bar Papa objected to Rabbi Zeira: But was it not stated: a rope tied to a cow may be tied to the feeding trough, the feeding trough may be tied to a cow. One understands a cow’s may be tied to the feeding trough. May from the feeding trough be tied to a cow? Would he not use the animal’s sides on the Sabbath? Rabbi Abba said, explain it for knots which are not permanent. Rabbi Yose said, is there a difference for sides of an animal whether the knot is permanent or not permanent? Rabbi Shammai said, explain it following Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated, Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. Rabbi Mana said, I confirmed it if he connects rope to rope.

“Rams may go out protected on their bellies;” one puts bursinin leather near its heart which is shielding against wild animals.

“Female sheep may go out with their tail bound high,” some Tannaim state sheḥuzot but some Tannaim state shuzot. He who says shuzot in finery, as you are saying “dressed as prostitute with hidden thoughts.”Proverbs 7:10 He who says sheḥuzot as you are saying, “one does not sharpen the knife.” Wrapped, because of fine wool. Bound low, that no ram may mount her. Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya: “He called it tied-down land,”1 Kings 9:13 land which produces no fruit.

“Rabbi Judah says goats may go out tied to dry but not for milk.” It was stated: Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra says, whether to dry or for milk is forbidden. Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra says it correctly; but what is the rabbi’s reasoning? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah; Rabbi Joḥanan bends it in the name of Rav: Practice follows him who said, whether to dry or for milk is forbidden, for who dissolves?

Mishnah

3 With what may an animal not go out? The camel may not go out with its pad, nor bound on one foot, nor bound on two feet, and so all other animals. One may not tie camels one to the other and draw, but he may take the ropes into his hand and draw on condition that he not wrap up.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “With what may an animal not go out? The camel may not go out with its pad.” Like the curved padding with which one equalizes a hump back. ʿAqud at one front leg. Ragul at both hind legs.

“One may not tie camels one to the other and draw.” Rabbi Abba said, because of the suspicion, that they should not say this man goes out to do his job on the Sabbath. Assi said, it was necessary for kilaim. Rav Judah in the name of Samuel said, from his hand it is forbidden but from the neck of the animal it is permitted, for if it is not for the animal wound around the animal’s neck it is forbidden, hanging from the animal’s neck it is permitted. Rav Huna and Rav Judah, both in the name of Samuel. One said, from his hand is forbidden but from the animal’s neck it is permitted. The other one inverts. He who says from his hand is forbidden, because of a load on the Sabbath. But from the animal’s neck it is permitted, because for the animal it is not a load on the Sabbath. And he who says from his hand is permitted, because it is impossible, but from the animal’s neck it is forbidden, because he is responsible for the rest of his animal as for his own, as it is said, “that your ox and your donkey rest”Exodus 23:12 “like you.”Deuteronomy 5:14

It was stated: A hand-breadth from his hand to the animal’s neck is forbidden. Rabbi Zeira said, from his hand is forbidden and from his animal’s neck is forbidden! A hand-breadth from his hand to the animal’s neck is forbidden, what is it that is permitted? Rabbi Joḥanan ben Marius said, one who wants to do it right should lead it like a Saracen horse.

Mishnah

4 A donkey may not go out with its saddle cloth if it is not bound to it, nor with a bell even if it is plugged, nor with a ladder on its neck, nor with a strip on its foot. Chicken may no go out with threads or strips on their feet. Rams may not go out with a cart under their tails nor female sheep with yaḥnun, nor a calf with gimun, nor a cow with hedgehog hide, nor with a strip between her horns. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s cow went out with a strip between her horns against the will of the Sages.

Halakhah

Mishnah: “A donkey may not go out with its saddle cloth,” etc. It was stated, “but it may walk around with it in the courtyard.” Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: The same applies to the saddle. It was stated: “a donkey may go out with its saddle to get warm but one may not tie the load belt and not lower the strap under its tail.” Rabbi Jeremiah asked Rabbi Zeira: How do we know these things? As we have stated: “The practices of Sabbath ... are like mountains hanging on a hair,” and you are saying so? He could have objected, what is the difference between a ladder and a package of straw? A ladder is substantial, a package of straw is not substantial. Rabbi Ḥanina said, he could have objected, what is the difference between a package of straw and an expert amulet? As we have stated, “it is forbidden that an animal go out with an expert amulet.” Rabbi Eudaimon said, he could have objected, what is the difference between a package of straw and a wound dressing? There are Tannaim who state, they may not go out with a package of straw; there are Tannaim who state, they may go out. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, this is a tannaitic difference. For him who said, they may go out with a package of straw; they may go out with a wound dressing. But for him who said, they may not go out with a package of straw; they may not go out with a wound dressing.

“Rams may not go out with a cart under their tails.” Because it makes a groove.

“Nor female sheep with yaḥnun.” Rav Judah says, a woolen cap. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: It is a root named yaḥnūnâ. Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Yose: Does this not imply that it is forbidden to let an animal go out with an expert amulet? He told him, yes, Babylonian, you understood it.

“Nor a calf with gimun.” Rav Huna said, a small yoke. Rav Ḥisda said, a wooden tablet. Abba bar Rav Huna said, a spit. Some Tannaim state gimun. Some Tannaim state gimul. He who said “gimun, to bend his head like a reed.”Isaiah 58:5 He who said “gimul, she brought him up with her after she had weaned him.”1 Samuel 1:24 He who said gimun supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said gimul supports Abba bar Rav Huna and Rav Huna.

“Nor a cow with hedgehog hide,” because one puts hedgehog hide between her udder so she cannot nurse her young.

“Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s cow went out with a strip between her horns against the will of the Sages.” Rabbi Abba: Both and Rabbi Rav and Samuel are saying, the words of the Sages are that even pulling her with them is forbidden. Rabbi Abba in the name of Samuel: If its horns were drilling it is permitted. Rabbi Yose said, I pointed out the difficulty before Rabbi Abba and he said, we only stated: “the female camel with a nose ring.” Rabbi Zeira in the name of Samuel: A badly behaved ox goes out with his bridle; our teachers in the Diaspora do this. Rabbi Illa, Rav Judah in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi Ḥiyya: A dog goes out with his muzzle. If to expect punish him it is forbidden, if so he should not eat his bridle it is permitted.

Ganiva said, he was continuing teaching as ruling. Rabbi Jonah from Bostra asked, if he was continuing teaching as ruling, is that what we were stating: “against the will of the Sages”? Rabbi Judah bar Pazi Rav following Bar Delaya stated, they told him, either remove yourself from between us or remove the strip from between its horns. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he was shielding himself against them. Rabbi Ḥananiah said, it went out once and his teeth became black from the fasts and mortification. Rabbi Idi from his staff Ḥotra said, it was his wife. And from where that his wife is called “calf”? “Had you not plowed with my calf you would not have solved my riddle.Judges 14:18” There, they are saying, it was his neighbor. Is anybody punished for his neighbor’s behavior? Rabbi Qiris from Didyma Irma: To teach you that if anybody has the possibility to protest and he does not protest, the damage is attached to him.

Mishnah

1 With what may a woman go out and with what may she not go out? A woman may go out neither with woolen or linen threads nor with ribbons on her head and she may not immerse herself wearing them unless she relaxes them. To the public domain not with a frontlet nor with a head-dress hanging down the cheeks as long as they are not sewn, nor an under-cap. Also not with a city of gold, nor with a chain, nor with nose rings, nor with a ring without a seal, nor with a pin. If she went out she is not liable for a purification offering.

Halakhah

“With what may a woman go out,” etc. Rav Naḥman bar Jacob said, because she loosens them because they separate for her period and she forgets and walks with them for four cubits. Rabbi Mana said, earlier we were saying because she opens what is sewn but we were not saying anything, as Rabbi Hoshaiah stated, a basket of palm leaves for dates one may tear and open but only one may not tie. There, we have stated: “The following separate on a human: threads of wool or of linen and the ribbons on the head of girls.” Samuel said, there is no hair here; in the opinion of Rabbi Judah, but only wool. Therefore hair does not separate in the opinion of everybody. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah; Rabbi Zeira in the name of the rabbis: One hair separates, two are in doubt, three do not separate.

Rabbi Zeira asked: If one tied one hair to another, is it one? One to two are they two? To three are they three? Rav Judah said, One who goes to immerse herself after her period ties her hair as a pony tail. To act on it and trust me.

Kahana asked Rav, may one go out with twisted chains? He told them, does one say, it is forbidden for a man to go out with his belt? Rav Huna instructed the wife of the Head of the Diaspora to put golden felt on the wig. Rabbi Joḥanan instructed these of the House of Con to put a patch with pearls on the jacket. Rabbi Ila said, anything connected to a garment is like the garment. And we have stated, one may go out with bells on his garment but one may not go out with bells around his neck. There are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are subject to impurity, and there are Tannaim who state that in both cases they are not subject to impurity. He who said, in both cases they are subject to impurity, if he made clappers for them, but he who said, in both cases they are not subject to impurity, if he did not make clappers for them. Even if he did make clappers for them they should be pure! Did not Rabbi Abbahu, Simeon bar Abba say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Bells on a crib. Two Amoraim. One said he can move it to and fro, only he should make no sound. But the other said, if he made a sound it is forbidden, otherwise it is permitted. There, although they are not made for sound on the Sabbath they are made for sound on weekdays; but here if they are not made for sound either on the Sabbath or weekdays, why did he make clappers for them?

“Not with a frontlet.” Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya, a Coptic one; something which one puts at the place of a frontlet. “Not with a head-dress hanging down the cheeks,” colored ones tucked in. “Nor an under-cap,” a cap. It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar permits. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Kahana: This of Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar comes out like Rabbi’s. Just as Rabbi said hidden things are permitted, so Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, hidden things are permitted.

Why is jewelry forbidden? Rabbi Abba said, because women are vain: she takes them off to show to her friend, forgets, and walks with them four cubits.

Rabbi Ḥalafta ben Shaul stated: It is forbidden to send jewelry. Rabbi Mana said, they said only to send, therefore to wear it is permitted. It was stated: One may move the shofar to let a child drink, the writing tablet, and the bell, and the mirror, to cover vessels. Rabbi Abun said, a Mishnah says that it is forbidden to wear it, as we have stated: “Anything which one may use on the holiday one may send.” If you say that it is permitted to wear it should be permitted to send. And what is that which was stated: One may move the shofar to let a child drink, the writing tablet, and the bell, and the mirror, to cover vessels? If they are called implements. So far gold jewelry. Also even silver jewelry? They said in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah forbidden, and they said in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah permitted. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the beginning and the end. Small girls were growing up in Rabbi Jeremiah’s dwelling. He went and asked Rabbi Zeira, who told him: do not forbid and do not permit.

One may not look into a mirror on the Sabbath. If it was fixed on a wall, Rabbi permits and the Sages prohibit. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abba: The reason of him who forbids that occasionally she will see a white hair and tear it out which brings her to the obligation of a purification sacrifice. But for a man it is forbidden also on weekdays because it is not honorable. Three things they permitted the House of Rabbi, that they might look into a mirror, that they got a haircut with a lock, and that they taught their children Greek, because they were in need of Roman government connections. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A person may teach Greek to his daughter because it is an ornament for her. Simeon bar Abba heard that and said, because he wants to teach his daughters he attaches it to Rabbi Joḥanan. Rabbi Abbahu heard this and said, it should come over me if I did not hear this from Rabbi Joḥanan.

It was stated: One may not go out with a head-band. “Three things were said about a head-band: It is not subject to kilaim, it cannot become impure by skin-disease, and one may not go out with it on the Sabbath. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, also it is not subject to brides’ crowns.”

“Nor with a city of gold.” Rav Judah said, for example a Jerusalem of gold The rabbis of Caesarea said, perush tuq tiqlin. It happened that Rabbi Akiva made a city of gold for his wife. Rabban Gamliel’s wife saw her and became jealous. She came and mentioned it before her husband. He told her, if you had done for me what she did for him, for she sold the braids of her head, gave him, and he studied Torah. There, we have stated: “Two in the name of Rabbi Eliezer. A woman may go out with a city of gold and participants in pigeon contests are disqualified for testimony.” It was stated, Rabbi Meir declares liable. Between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis it is understandable, Rabbi Meir declares liable and the Sages declare not liable. Between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis it is understandable, Rabbi Eliezer permits and the Sages prohibit. Between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Eliezer it is difficult, Rabbi Meir declares liable and Rabbi Eliezer permits.

Rabbi Iniani bar Sosai said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she did go out she is obligated for a purification sacrifice she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Everywhere they said she may not go out and when she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice she is permitted to go out with it to the courtyard. Rabbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet, a Mishnah said so: “with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard.” Rabbi Lia in the name of Rabbi Simeon bar Ḥiyya: Even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard. Is a man permitted because he is not vain? Let us hear from the following: Rabban Gamliel ben Rabbi went walking in his courtyard on the Sabbath with a golden key in his hand. His colleagues scolded him because of jewelry. This implies that if something is made as jewelry it is forbidden. This implies also if it has a dual purpose. This implies both man and woman. This implies that even when they said she may not go out but if she went out she is not obligated for a purification sacrifice, she is prohibited to go out with it to the courtyard.

Mishnah

2 A man may not go out with a nailed shoe, nor with a single one if he does not have a wound on his foot, nor with a phylactery nor with a amulet not written by an expert, nor with armor, nor with a helmet, nor with soldier’s boots. If he went out he is not liable for a purification offering.

Halakhah

Why did they decree about a nailed shoe? Some say, because they saw the tips and had miscarriages. But some say, they heard its sound and had miscarriages. And some say, they were stampeding and killing one another. What is the difference between them? hadusta. According to him who said, because they saw the tips and had miscarriages, it is permitted. But according to him who said, they heard its sound and had miscarriages or they were stampeding and killing one another, it is forbidden. But did they not decree this in an emergency? When the emergency passed it should have been permitted. There never rose a court which undid it. Then even on a weekday! People do not usually have two pairs of shoes, one for weekdays and one for the Sabbath. It was stated: If one put a patch under it it is permitted. Rabbi Yudan bar Ishmael’s feet were scratched and they did this for him.

How many nails should it have? Rabbi Joḥanan said five, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. Rabbi Ḥanina said seven, “corresponding to your days are your steps.”Deuteronomy 33:25 The rabbis are accustomed to follow Rabbi Ḥanina. Rabbi Aḥa explained following Rabbi Ḥanina: nine. Rabbi put thirteen on one shoe and eleven on the other, for the number of watches. “And like planted nails,”Ecclesiastes 12:11 since the watches are 24, so the nails 24. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a crooked nail is not counted with the nails. Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Abba bar Zavda: may one put all of them on one sandal? He told him, it is permitted. May one put all of them on one boot? He told him, it is permitted. One does not scrape old boots or sandals but one may oil them or dip them in water. Rabbi Crispus in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The students of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya say that those of first rank said, one may scrape, those of second rank said, one may not scrape. Rabbi was asked and said, one does not scrape. Rabbi Zeira said, here goes one of the students of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina follow him who said he scrapes but only with the back of a knife. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, we used to sit before Rabbi and were oiling and rinsing, but not scraping. Nobody should anoint his foot in a boot or his foot in a sandal but he may oil his foot and step into his boot or oil his foot and step into his sandal. One may oil himself and roll on a new tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it.

One does not wear new boots and sandals except if he wore and walked in them during daytime. How far should he walk? The sons of Bar Qappara’s daughter said, from the House of Study of Bar Qappara to the House of Rabbi Hoshea’s teacher. The Sepphoreans say, from the Babylonian synagogue to Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina’s house. The Tiberians say, from the Academy to Rabbi Hoshaiah’s store.

“A sandal whose holes, edges, or loops are torn or one of whose soles fell off is pure. If one of its holes, edges, or loops is torn or most of its soles fell of it is impure. Rabbi Judah says, on the inside it is impure, on the outside it is pure.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Tevele, Ḥanin bar Abba in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Jehuda as far as the Sabbath is concerned.

A case came before Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. He sent Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa to ask Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He said to him, just as they disagree about the Sabbath so they disagree about impurity, and instructed him following the rabbis. Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked himself: One heard saying, practice follows Rabbi Jehuda, and he instructed him following the rabbis?

A case came before Rabbi Aḥa bar Isaac. He sent to ask Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Immi. The latter said to him: Following the words of him who declares impure, it is permitted to go out on it on the Sabbath. Following the words of him who declares pure, it is forbidden to go out on it on the Sabbath. He did not get anything out of him.

It was stated: But he may walk on it until he reaches the entrance of his courtyard. Rabbi Aḥa and Rabbi Zeira were walking on the highway. The sandal of Rabbi Aḥa was torn. When they came to the city gate, Rabbi Zeira told him, that is the entrance of your courtyard. Rabbi Aḥa wound a fiber around. Rabbi Abbahu wound a bundle of Jew’s mallow. Rabbi Abbahu was of the opinion that a bundle of Jew’s mallow is ready to be used. Rabbi Jonah threw them away before the fried food store. That is little honor. The honor of Rabbi Eleazar obliged him to take it off. Rabbi Jeremiah asked Rabbi Zeira: May one switch? He said to him, it is permitted. Nevertheless, he told him: go and look for an Elder and rely on him. He went out and found Rabbi Abba bar Mamal, asked him, and he permitted. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah said that this is a kind of clothing: “Or with a left foot sandal on the right foot, the ḥaliṣah is valid.” That means, in length. But in width it must cover most of the foot.

“Nor with a single one.” Rabbi Abba said, because of the suspicion. That they should not say Mr. X’s sandal was torn and and he put it under his armpit.

“If he does not have a wound on his foot.” Therefore if he has a wound on his foot he may wear one. On which foot does he wear it? Samuel said, he wears it on the one which has no wound. If you would say that he wears it on the one which has the wound, how does he tie it that he could not put it on the other? Rabbi Joḥanan said, he wears it on the one which has the wound. Simeon bar Abba served Rabbi Joḥanan; he brought him his sandals as it was stated in Derekh Ereṣ: When he puts them on, he puts the right foot one on first and after this the left foot one, when he removes them he removes the left foot one and after this the right foot one. Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, Babylonian, you should not act in this way for the earlier generations did not do this. But when he puts them on, he puts the left foot one on first and after this the right foot one, that the right side one should not look deficient. This implies that he wears it on the one which has the wound. He told him, yes, Babylonian, you got it.

One may go out on Friday toward nightfall with phylacteries, but one may not go out on Friday toward nightfall with nailed shoes. What is the difference between them? These one usually takes off, those one does not usually take off.

“What is an expert amulet? Any with which one healed, and repeated, and did it a third time.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A healer can be trusted when he says, with this expert amulet I healed, and repeated, and did it a third time. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: If he healed one person he is trustworthy for one person, for two persons he is trustworthy for two persons, for three persons he is trustworthy for everybody.

“One may go out with an expert amulet whether written or based on herbs, on condition that it be put neither in a chain nor in a ring.” They asked Rabbi Jonathan, may it be put in a tube? He answered him, “on condition that it be put neither in a chain nor in a ring.” They asked Rabbi Jonathan, may one go out with a necklace? He said, because of jewelry. If because of jewelry, Daniel should have prohibited, “and a golden necklace around his neck.”Daniel 5:7 If because of a load on the Sabbath, we may say that anything connected to a garment is like a garment.

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Yose: One may put a dressing on a healed wound since it is only protective. Rabbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: One may put it on a wound on the Sabbath since it is only protective. Rabbi Tanḥuma said, except vine leaves which only are for healing.

Rabbi Ḥuna said, madder is a good root, the more the better. If it has five knots or seven knots, the best has nine knots, only if it does not ooze fluid.

One does not recite a verse over a wound on the Sabbath; the one which one recites about mandrakes is forbidden. Come and recite this verse for my son who is afraid, put on him a scroll, put on him phylacteries, so he will go to sleep, is forbidden. But did we not state, they used to recite the Song of the Afflicted in Jerusalem? Rabbi Yudan said, one means after he was hurt, the other before he was hurt. What is the Song of the Afflicted? “Eternal, how many are my oppressors,” and the entire Psalm. “Sitting in the shelter of the Most High” up to: “Truly, You, Eternal, are my refuge, the Most High you put as your help.”

Mishnah

3 A woman may not go out with a needle that has an ear, nor with a signet ring, nor with a snail-shaped headdress, nor with a perfume bouquet, nor with a perfume flask; if she went out she is liable for a purification offering, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages declare her not liable for a perfume bouquet or a perfume flask.

Halakhah

It was stated: “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment, nor a scribe with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear, nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If any of these left they are not liable, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable, therefore everybody else may leave with one of these.” The argument of Rabbi Meir seems inverted, as we have stated there: “If she left she is liable, the words of Rabbi Meir,” and here he says so? Rabbi Mana said it without attribution, Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there: “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume.” Therefore with a needle without ear one is liable. Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft? Rabbi Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser.

Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Rav Naḥman, it is Rabbi Neḥemiah’s, as we have stated there: “A metal ring with a coral seal is impure; a coral ring with a metal seal is pure.” It was stated about this: “Rabbi Neḥemiah switches. And so did Rabbi Neḥemiah say, for a ring after its seal, for a ladder after its steps, for a qolav after what fixes it, for a lock yoke after its strips.” Rabbi Ila said, explain it according to everybody if she took it out in order to seal with it. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: if it was made for dual purpose, if she brought it out in order to seal one is liable, if she brought it out as jewelry one is not liable even for the seal for also the seal becomes an accessory of jewelry.

Mishnah

4 A man may go out neither with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a shield, nor with a bludgeon, nor with a spear, and if he went out he is liable for a purification offering. Rabbi Eliezer says, these are adornments for him, but the Sages say, they only are shameful for him, as it is said, “they will forge their swords into plows and their lances into vintner’s knives.” A garter is pure and one may go out with in on the Sabbath. Ropes are impure and one may not go out with them on the Sabbath.

Halakhah

It is written: “Armed did the Children of Israel leave the Land of Egypt.”Exodus 13:18 This teaches that they were armed with fifteen five kinds of arms. And what is an ʾallah? Since Rabbi Jacob bar Sosai, Rabbi Yose, stated: “When does he start to give heave from his threshing floor? When he removes the ʾallah.” This means two-pronged fork. What is Rabbi Eleazar’s reason? “Gird your sword on your hip, o hero, your splendor and your glory.”Psalms 45:3 What is the rabbis’ reason? “They will forge their swords into plows,” into plows, “and their lances into vintner’s knives,” into pruning knives.

Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: birit is any single one, kevalim any ones connected by a chain. Rabbi Judah says, birit is a step-chain, as Rav Judah said, “we are offering a sacrifice to the Eternal, everybody what he found of gold items,” ʾeṣʿadah ve-ṣamid ṭabbaʿat ʿagil ve-khumaz, “to atone for our persons before the Eternal.”Numbers 31:50 ʾeṣʿadah is an anklet, ṣamid are bracelets, as you are saying, “and the bracelets on her arms.” ṭabbaʿat rings. ʿagil earrings, as you are saying, “earrings on your ears.”Ezekiel 16:12 ve-khumaz some are saying this is the form of a womb, but some are saying the form of breasts.

It is written, “on that day the Eternal will remove the splendor of the anklets,”Isaiah 3:18–24 bark shoes, as you are saying, “with their feet they skid.”Isaiah 3:16 “The head bands,” shalṭoniya, as you are saying “the head-band of the hair net.” The half-moons, necklaces, as you are saying, “he took the half-moons from the necks of their camels.”Judges 8:21 The pendants, Solomonic jewelry. Chains, chains. Veils, silken. Head bands, diadems, as you are saying, “your head bands on your heads.”Ezekiel 24:23 Foot chains, podopsella. Tyings, bells. Belly wraps, Aquila translated astu mukhriʾa, something which is put on the place of breathing. And incantations, precious stones put on the larynx. Rings, rings. Nose rings, something put on the nose. Overcoats, perizomata. Wrappings, tunics and tunics. The shawls, large fine tissues. Handbags, decorated belts and decorated pure silk tissues. As you are saying, “he took from their hands and tied it in tissue.”Exodus 32:4 “The head covers,” head covers. The sheets, the sheets. The turbans, ʾolaraya, as you are saying, “he said, put” ... “the pure turban on his head.”Zechariah 3:5 “And the veils,” fine cloth, as you are saying, “they took away my veil, the watchmen on the walls.”Song of Solomon 5:7

Mishnah

5 A woman may go out with hair threads, whether her own or another woman’s or an animal’s, with a frontlet with a head-dress hanging down the cheeks if they are sewn; with an under-cap and another’s braid into the courtyard with cotton wool in her ear, or cotton wool in her shoes, or cotton wool which she prepared for her period. With pepper or a grain of salt or any other thing she may put into her mouth on condition that she not start on the Sabbath, and if it fell out she may not return it. A replacement tooth and a gilt tooth Rabbi permits but the Sages prohibit.

Halakhah

Ḥanan bar Immi said before Rabbi Rav Judah in the name of Menashia bar Menashe Jeremiah: But only that a young girl should not go out with an old woman’s nor an old woman with a young girl’s. But did we not state: “Girls go out with threads”? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah, even wound around her neck. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira, there even if she cannot bring her nose a thread similar to her hair she may leave with it. But here, a young girl should not go out with an old woman’s nor an old woman with a young girl’s.

Rabbi Abbahu said, anything which sits in the hair is called “wig.” The younger Rabbi Yannai had cotton wool in his ear which fell out. He wanted to return it on the Sabbath. His companions rebuked him; was it because of jewelry? Was Rabbi Yannai of the opinion that oil is the healing agent, whereas the Sages were of the opinion that the cotton wool was the healing agent? But did not Rav Rabbi Judah say in the name of Rav Zeira, a person with earache puts oil on his head and whispers on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel? Was Rabbi Yannai of the opinion that practice follows Rabbi Yose whereas his companions were of the opinion that practice does not follow Rabbi Yose? Buy did not Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say in the name of Rav, practice follows Rabbi Yose? Was Rabbi Yannai of the opinion that they did not consider humans like soil whereas his companions were of the opinion that they made humans like soil? But did not Rabbi Zeira say that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi made himself a handle for the cotton wool in his ear? Could they hold that a human is treated like soil? Is this so? But it must be the following: Rabbi Yannai was of the opinion that he would not forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain and his companions were of the opinion that one would forget and carry it four cubits in the public domain.

Rabbi Mana said, I heard the reason from Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? Rabbi Yose said, it is understandable that with a golden tooth which was expensive she should not go out, for if she lost it she would put it back. But what can you say about a replacement tooth? Still she would be embarrassed to tell the carpenter, make me another one. If she lost it she would put it back.

Rabbi Yasa and Rabbi Immi. One had a toothache and his colleague instructed him; the other one had an earache and his colleague instructed him. We do not know who said what. Since Rabbi Yasa asked Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa’s doctor, how feels Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa’s tooth, and since Rabbi Yasa never said an unnecessary word, it was he who instructed about the tooth.

Rabbi Yannai explains it about peppers or a grain of salt; his companions explain it about everything.

Mishnah

6 One goes out with a tetradrachma on a arthritic foot. Girls go out with threads and even chips in their ears. Arab women go out veiled and Median women pinned, and also everybody, but the Sages spoke about what is.

Halakhah

“One goes out with a tetradrachma on a ṣinnit;” podagra, gout. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Mamal, even a metal plate.

But did we not state, “girls go out with threads”? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Judah, even wound around her neck. Abba bar Abba commanded to his son Samuel, do not accept this Mishnah, but “not with chips in their ears.” This is how the Mishnah reads: “Arab women go out veiled; Median women pinned.”

Mishnah

7 She ties down with a stone, or a walnut, or a coin on condition that she not start tying down on the Sabbath.

Halakhah

It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they stated only coin and stone. Therefore with a nut it is permitted, because it may be moved. Rav Ada bar Ahava said, It results that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rabbi Meir. Just as Rabbi Meir said, what may be moved is permitted, so Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, what may be moved is permitted.

Mishnah

8 The amputee goes out with his prosthesis, the words of Rabbi Yose, but Rabbi Meir prohibits. If it has an extensive reception area it is impure. His stilts are impure by stepping on, one goes out with them on the Sabbath, and one may enter the Temple Court with them. A wheelchair and its supports are impure by stepping on, one may not go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them. Donkey figures are pure but one may not go out with them.

Halakhah

Samuel said, one goes out with them because they are like a sandal, and one may enter the Temple Court with them. Rabbi Yannai asked, one goes out with them because they are like sandals, and one may enter the Temple Court with them, because they are not sandals? Rabbi asked Mana said, instead of asking about Samuel he should have asked about the Mishnah, “its supports are impure by stepping on, one may go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them.” Rabbi Mana said, say does its last part not disagree with Samuel? “Its supports are impure by stepping on, one may not go out with them on the Sabbath, and one may not enter the Temple Court with them. Donkey figures are pure and one may go out with them.” What are pure donkey figures? Rabbi Abbahu said, onos kat’ omon, arm’s donkey.

Mishnah

9 Boys go out with knots and princes with bells, and so may everybody, but the Sages spoke about what is. One may go out with a locust’s egg and a fox’s tooth and a nail of a crucified person because of healing, the words of Rabbi Yose. But Rabbi Meir forbids on weekdays because of ways of the Amorite.

Halakhah

“Boys go out with knots,” knots of madder. “And princes with bells.” Rabbi Zeira said, with bells around their necks. What is meant by “and so may everybody”? Whether children of the poor or children of the rich. Rabbi Ila said, with bells on his clothing. What is meant by “and so may everybody”? Whether adult or child. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Zeira: A person may go out with bells on his clothing but he may not go out with bells around his neck. But here about adults and there about the young.

“One may go out with a locust’s egg,” to cure an earache; “and a fox’s tooth,” for sleep; “and a nail of a crucified person,” to cure a swelling.

There are Tannaim who switch. Rabbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan as our Mishnah. Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, anything which heals is not forbidden because of ways of the Amorite. “dargi dargivat because of ways of the Amorite; Rabbi Judah says because of the idol Dagon, “and Dagon’s head and his two hands.”1 Samuel 5:4 donu dani because of ways of the Amorite; Rabbi Judah says because of the idol Dan, “they say, by the life of your god Dan.”Amos 8:14 No no, because of ways of the Amorite; Rabbi Judah says because idolatry, “they say no God, turn away from us, we have no desire to know Your ways.”Job 21:14”

Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: If a bone was stuck in his throat he puts of the same kind on top of his head and this is not of ways of the Amorite. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “you shall neither divine nor use incantations.”Leviticus 19:26 Even through there is no divining there are signs, but only after three portents; for example “when I came from Padan, Rachel died on me”Genesis 48:7“; Joseph is no more, Simeon is no more, and you want to take Benjamin,”Genesis 42:36 etc

Rabbi Eleazar said, one follows what one hears from a disembodied voice. What is the reason? “Your ears will hear something from behind you saying, this is the way you should follow”Isaiah 30:21 etc. Rabbi Eleazar went to relieve himself. There came a Roman official and removed him from behind him and sat down. He said, here nobody removed anybody ever but me. It is impossible that I should leave from here until I know what happened to him. There was a snake there which started coming out and gave him as long as he was there that his intestines descended. He recited about him, “I will give a man in your stead,” etc., I will give an Edomite in your stead.

One of bar Qappara’s students went out to cut wood chips. A fig cutter saw that a snake was running after him. He said to him Rabbi, Rabbi, a snake is running after you. It left him and ran after the latter. He recited about him, “I will give a man in your stead.”

Germania the slave of Rabbi Judah Nesia went out and wanted to accompany Rabbi Ila. There came a rabid dog which wanted to attack Rabbi Ila. The German shouted at him, he left him and pursued the other. He recited about him, “I will give a man in your stead.”

Bar Qappara went to this town; when he entered he injured his finger. He went and heard a child’s voice, reciting “if he came alone he shall leave alone.”Exodus 21:3 He said, it seems that only this plastering is going to happen to me. And so it was.

Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish desired to meet Samuel. They said, let us go after what is heard. They passed by a school and heard a child’s voice, “and Samuel died.”1 Samuel 28:3 They noted it and so it had happened.

Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose went up to visit Rabbi Aḥa who was weak. They said, let us go after what is heard. They heard a woman’s voice saying, the light is extinguished. She answered her, Israel’s light is not extinguished and will not be extinguished.

Rabbi Joḥanan was passing by the market. He saw one of those who sell honey cake. He asked him, from this you make a living? He answered, yes. He left him and went away. After an hour he passed by him. He asked him, rabbi, pray for me since from that moment I did not sell anything. He told him, change your place. Sometimes a change of name works, sometimes a change of place works.

Two students of Rabbi Ḥanina went out to chop wood. An astrologer saw them, these two if they go out will not return. When they went out they met an old man who told them, acquire merit by me; for three days I did not eat anything. They had a loaf with them, cut off half of it and gave it to him. He ate and prayed for them; he said to them, may your life be preserved today as you did preserve my life today. They went out in peace and returned in peace. There were people there who had heard his voice and told him, did you not say, these two if they go out will not return? He said, if it is so, this man is a liar and his astrology consists of lies. Nevertheless they went and investigated and found a viper half in this load and half in the other load. They asked, what good deed did you do today? They told him the facts. He said, what can this man do if the Jew’s God is propitiated by half a loaf!

Rabbi Ḥuna told the following happening. A convert was an astrologer. Once he wanted to go on a trip. He said, does one go now? He changed his mind and said, did I not cling to this holy people to separate myself from these things? I will go in the name of our Creator. He came close to the toll gate when his donkey kicked and ate it threw him off. What caused him to fall? Because he thought of it. Why was he saved? Because he trusted in his Creator.

Rabbi Levi said, in the end it will come over anybody engaged in divination. What is the reason? “For there is no divination in Jacob”Numbers 23:23; for divination is his. Rabbi Aḥa bar Zeira said, the place of anybody not divining will be like that of the Angels of Service. What is the reason? “At that time it will be said to Israel what God has done.” Rabbi Ḥanina the son of Rabbi Abbahu said, this evildoer lived halfway through the existence of the world. What is the reason? “At that time it will be said to Israel what God has done.” Rabbi Jeremiah ben Eleazar said, in the future a disembodied voice will explode in the tents of the Just and say, everybody who worked with God should come and take his reward. Rabbi Berekhiah in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana: In the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will make place for the Just inside the place of the Angels of Service; the Angels of Service will ask them and say to them, “what did God do?” What did the Holy One, praise to Him, teach you? Rabbi Levi bar Ḥayta said, did He not already do this in this world? That is what is written, “Nebuchadnezzar started and said, but I am seeing four free men walking in the fire and no blemish is on them.”Daniel 3:25 Why does the verse say, “and no blemish is on them”? This teaches that they were eunuchs but were healed. It is not written “and the looks of the first,” but “and the looks of the fourth”; they were suppressing the fire before him. “Is similar to a son of gods.” Rabbi Reuben said, at that moment an angel descended, hit that evildoer on his mouth, and told him, correct your words; does He have a son? He continued and said, “praised be the God of Shadrak, Meshak, and Abed-Nego”Daniel 3:28; it does not say “Who sent His son” but “Who sent His angel and rescued His servants who trusted in Him.”

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

“A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbath,” etc. What is meant by “comprehensive”? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than the principle of the Sabbatical year, since the Sabbath falls on everything but the Sabbatical year falls on agricultural work in the Land only. There we have stated: “A comprehensive principle they said about the Sabbatical year.” What is meant by “a comprehensive principle”? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than tithes, for the Sabbatical year falls on human food and animal feed but tithes apply to human food only. Bar Qappara stated: a comprehensive principle they said about tithes. What is meant by “a comprehensive principle”? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, because it is more comprehensive than peah, for tithes apply both to food that is stored and to food which is not stored, but peah applies only to food used as stored staple. Some want to say, what is meant by “comprehensive”? From here that there are derivatives.

We have stated: “Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” They stated in the House of Rabbi: Anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Rabbi Eleazar follows our Mishnah. Rabbi Joḥanan follows what was stated in the House of Rabbi. But Rabbi Eliezer said, “anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” Therefore if he does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath is he not liable? Since Rav stated our Mishnah and explained it: who is the one who does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath? A child who was taken prisoner among the Gentiles. This implies that both versions are the same. As Rabbi Joḥanan said, anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Therefore if he does not if he did know and forgot he is liable. Since what Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rabbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that both versions are the same. They asked Rabbi Yasa’s son: What did you hear from your father about Rabbi Yose? He said, following Rabbi Joḥanan. Rabbi Ḥizqiah told them, he did not say so. But Rabbi Simon bar Zavda was simply with Rabbi Yose’s son and heard from him following Rabbi Eliezer.

How do we know these things? “He did one, and did these, and did of these. He did one,” to obligate for each one separately; “and did these,” to obligate for all of them together. Of these, to obligate for derivatives. Or should we say that the verse refers to idolatry? Rabbi Zakkai stated before Rabbi Joḥanan: if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable for each one separately. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Babylonian! You crossed by hand three rivers and were broken; he is liable only once. Before it was broken in his hand there was one but no these; after it was broken in his hand there was these but no one. But it could be idolatry worshipped by the rules of worship of Heaven as by prostration. In its own worship to obligate for each one separately. By the rules of worship of Heaven to obligate one for all of them. Like prostration to obligate for partial action. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac. It is written, “if the anointed priest should sin to damage the people”Leviticus 4:3 ... “he has to bring a bull.” This excludes idolatry for which he does not bring a bull but only a she-goat. They objected, are there not fat and sexual taboos for which the Anointed brings a bull? We come only to state things that have derivatives. Fat has no derivatives. For sexual taboos He made one who touched equal to one who had full intercourse. The colleagues say, “a Sabbath it is for the Eternal,” to obligate for each single Sabbath. Rabbi Ila said, it is written: “Anybody doing work on it shall be put to death,”Exodus 35:2 not one who does on it and another. You are saying, the Sabbaths do not combine. Do they separate? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, just as they do not combine they do not separate.

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

There, we have stated: “Rabbi Akiva said, I asked Rabbi Eliezer: If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one separately? He told him, he is liable for each occurrence separately by an argument from the lesser to the greater. Since for the menstruating woman, which does not entail many ramifications nor many purification sacrifices, he is liable for each single occurrence, for the Sabbath which has many ramifications and many purification sacrifices it is only logical that he be liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the menstruating woman where there are two warnings, for he is warned about a menstruating woman and the menstruating woman is warned about him, what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one warning? He said to me, the case of one who has intercourse with an underage girl proves it, where there is only one warning, but he is liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the underage girl who even though there is no warning now there will be one in the future, what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one warning whether now or in the future. He told me, the case of one having intercourse with an animal proves it. I said to him, the animal is like the Sabbath.”

Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding the work. About this we have stated “many works.” He is not liable because of Sabbaths. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work. About this we have stated “many Sabbaths.” He is not liable because of the works. Now Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. Both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not concede to him? Since what Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rabbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once. This implies that he did not concede to him. It was Now Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda said, he asked him about error regarding the Sabbath but intent about the work. Did he concede to him or did he not instruct concede to him? Rabbi Zeira said before Rabbi Yasa, a baraita implies that he did not concede to him, as it was stated, “‘I know that it is the Sabbath, I know that this is work. But I do not know that this is work for which one becomes liable to extirpation.’ If he did work of several categories he is liable for every single work. If he did work of one category only, he is liable for every episode of oblivion if there were many oblivions, but if all was one oblivion he is liable only once.” Since he did not quote this as an objection it implies that he did not concede to him.

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

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

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

Now Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, both of them say, he asked him about intent regarding the Sabbath but error regarding works. Can anybody become liable intentionally? You superimpose the error regarding works over the intent regarding the Sabbath. Similarly, in case of error regarding the Sabbath but intent regarding the work you superimpose the error regarding the Sabbath over the intent regarding works to hold him liable for each single occurrence. Does Rabbi Eliezer not accept one, to obligate for each one separately? It was found stated in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: An adult who was abducted among Gentiles is liable for each single one.

What is the difference between intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works or in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional about works? Rabbi Yose said, why intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works makes him liable for each single one? For if you tell him that this is forbidden work, he stops doing it and does other works. Why in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional about works makes him liable only once? For if you tell him that it is a Sabbath, he stops immediately. What if he is in error in both respects? Rav Hamnuna said, he is liable only once. Rabbi Zeira said to him, is that not a case a fortiori? If he is intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error about works, is he not liable for each single one? Because there was added for him the error regarding work on the Sabbath; the error about works is lost?

Rabbi Jeremiah asked Rabbi Zeira: If one harvested half the volume of a dried fig on this Sabbath, intentional regarding the Sabbath and in error regarding the work, and half the volume of a dried fig on another Sabbath, in error regarding the Sabbath and intentional regarding the work; do the errors combine? Is it possible to say Sabbaths divide, Sabbaths combine? Do not trays divide and trays combine? He answered, I do not know the reason for the tray. Is this not a baraita? If he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rabbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rabbi Azariah said before Rabbi Mana, explain it by intent. He said to him, is this not an argument a fortiori? Since intent neither divides nor combines, error which does not divide a fortiori does not combine.

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

One understands Sabbath since weekdays come in the meantime. What may you say about the menstruating woman? Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, explain it about an underage menstruating woman where days of purity came in the meantime. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon says, so did he ask him: If he came to one menstruating woman five times in one period of oblivion, what? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one? He answered him, he is liable for each single one. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is not so. Rabbi Mana asked the following: Did not Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu say in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rabbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once? Then here also he should be liable only once. Rabbi Yose said, I confirmed this following what Rabbi Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina, it is not so. Like the rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Nisa: This entire Halakhah follows Rabbi Eliezer, and all that is derived from it as all practice follows Rabbi Eliezer.

Mishnah

2 There are 39 categories of work. He who plows, 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 bakes. 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 clean, who tans it, who cuts it, who writes two letters, and who erases in order to write two letters. He who builds, and who tears down, who extinguishes fire, and who lights fire, and who hits with a hammer, and who transports from one domain to another; these are the 39 categories of work.

Halakhah

“The categories of work are 39.” How do we know that the categories of work are from the Torah? Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Corresponding to the thirty-nine occurrences of melakhah in the Torah. They asked Rabbi Aḥa, everywhere where melakhot is written it should count for two! Rabbi Ashian said, Rabbi Aḥa checked by eye the entire Torah and did not find this word written. The following is necessary: “He came into the house to do his work”Genesis 39:11 is with them. “God completed on the Seventh Day His work which He did,”Genesis 2:2 is with them. Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: “Six days you shall eat unleavened bread and on the seventh day you should not do work”Deuteronomy 16:8 comes to complete the 39 “works” written in the Torah.

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥmani: Corresponding to the 39 times “service” and “work” is written about the Tabernacle.

Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it does not say “this is the word” but “these are the words.”Exodus 35:1 “Word,” “words,” “words.” From here about categories and derivatives. Rabbi Ḥanina of Sepphoris in the name of Rabbi Abbahu. Alef is one, Lamed is 30, He is five, “word” is one, “words” are two. From here the 39 “works” written in the Torah. The rabbis of Caesarea say, at its place nothing is missing, aleph is one, lamed 30, ḥet 8. The rabbis never hesitate to identify he and ḥet.

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

The sons of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya worked on this Chapter for six months. They produced six derivatives for each single one. The sons of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya follow the method of their father, as Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all liable because of harvesting.” Rabbi Sidor said, Judah the son of the rabbi studied Makhširin for six months. In the end there came a student of Rabbi Simai and asked him, but he could not answer. He said, it is recognizable that this one never passed by the gate of the Torah.

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

Rabbi Zakkai stated before Rabbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rabbi 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.”} Rabbi Abba bar Mamal asked Rabbi Zeira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,” 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 guilty. Also here: “Do not worship them,” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,” 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 guilty. 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 detail. He retorted: Is it not written: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”? “He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned.” He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. 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 principle. Rabbi 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 Heaven.

Rabbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned.”Exodus 22:20 Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything, prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rabbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath. 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 settlements.”Numbers 35:29 Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rabbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity, and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs.

This implies that one item which was mentioned separately by necessity does not divide. If it was mentioned not by necessity it divides. If two items were mentioned separately, do they divide? Let us hear from the following: How do we know that he transgresses a prohibition whoever brings to the altar meat of a purification offering, or meat of a reparation offering, or meat of most holy offerings, or meat from simply holy offerings, or the remainder of the ʿOmer or the Two Breads, or the Showbread, or remainders of cereal offerings, or leaven, or date honey? The verse says, “for any leaven or any date honey you may not turn into smoke as a fire gift to the Eternal.”Leviticus 2:11 Therefore anything that had been given to the fire is under “do not turn into smoke.”

Rabbi Eleazar asked Rabbi Joḥanan. Should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He told him, it follows what was stated, “the altar,”Leviticus 2:12 this means not only the altar, from where to include the ramp? The verse says, “on the altar they shall not be lifted.”Leviticus 2:12 I might think neither as an act of worship nor as act of worship. The verse says, “as aroma smell,”Leviticus 2:12 I was saying this only as an act of worship. He retorted, them is a restriction. 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 instruct. That means, two items which were mentioned separately do not separate. Rabbi Ḥananiah the son of Rabbi Hillel said, they do not separate, therefore they instruct.

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun does not say so but Rabbi Eleazar asked Rabbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? 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 ramp. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rabbi Ishmael they do divide, as Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rabbi Ishmael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide. As Rabbi Ishmael stated, “you shall neither divine nor cast spells.”Leviticus 19:26 Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case.

In general by extirpation, the separate case by extirpation; the word of Rabbi Joḥanan implies that it is “general case and detail,” as Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, “since anybody who would perform any of these abomination” s, “they will be extirpated.”Leviticus 18:29 Was not his sister included in the general class and was mentioned separately of the general class to divide from the general class. Rabbi Eleazar objected, is it not written, “the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for he would touch his relative”Leviticus 20:19? He told him, this was mentioned separately for a reason, to judge by “touching.”Leviticus 20:19 He said to him, is it not written, “a man who would lie with an unwell woman,”Leviticus 20:18 “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 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. He said to him, is it not written, “a man who would sleep with his aunt,”Leviticus 20:20 “his uncle’s nakedness he uncovered”? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness. But is it not written, “a man who would marry his brother’s wife, she is separated”Leviticus 20:21? He told him, this was mentioned separately to judge by childlessness, as Rabbi Yudan said, where it is written “childless they shall be,”Leviticus 20:21 they will be without children, “childless they shall die,”Leviticus 20:20 they bury their children.

Rabbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his maternal brother’s wife. It is said here his aunt, and it is said there, “either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall free him.”Leviticus 25:49 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 sister. Also “his brother’s wife” 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 Rabbi Akiva. Following Rabbi Ishmael? As Rabbi Ishmael stated: It is said here “his brother’s wife” and it is said there, “a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah.”Leviticus 20:21 Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his paternal brother’s wife may be permitted after being forbidden. This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden.

But Rabbi Ishmael himself had a problem: from where does one prove it? Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? “It should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it,”Exodus 30:32 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 extirpation. How does Rabbi Joḥanan treat this? The verse speaks about males. His sister is mentioned to teach about all females. Does Rabbi Eleazar not accept this? He has it from “do not come near,”Leviticus 18:6 equally male or female. How does Rabbi Joḥanan treat this? He explains it but it is not clear, so also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked Rabbi Zeira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta dedicated for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny, so that one would not be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, 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 impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rabbi Ḥanina said, so it is. They split but do not combine.

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rabbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail. Rabbi Eleazar said, one whips for plowing in the Sabbatical year. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for plowing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rabbi Eleazar’s reason? “The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,”Leviticus 25:2 a general principle. “Your field you shall not sow,” “your vineyard you shall not prune,”Leviticus 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 Rabbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rabbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rabbi 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. Rabbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rabbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rabbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions. Rabbi Abba from Carthage said, Rabbi Joḥanan’s reason is “six years you shall sow,” not in the Sabbatical; “and six years you shall prune your vineyard,”Leviticus 25:3 not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment. Rabbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. Rabbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that “the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal”Leviticus 25:2? That is for the prohibition implied by it.

I might think that they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rabbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I might think that one gives lashes for plowing during the Sabbatical year, but Rabbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I might think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaim state: “Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard”; but some Tannaim state: “Your field you shall not sow,” etc. He who says six years supports Rabbi Joḥanan; he who says “your field you shall not sow” supports Rabbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rabbi Eleazar: Beware of, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: “There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer,”Deuteronomy 12:13–14 that is the offering; “and there you shall make,” that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, 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 commandment. How does Rabbi 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 offense. 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 action.

Anywhere one stated categories there are derivatives. There, we have stated: “There are four categories of damages. The ox,” this is the horn. Goring and pushing are main categories. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: If it bit, lay down, kicked, these are derivatives of the horn. There, we have stated: “The categories of impurity, the crawling animal and semen.” What are derivatives of crawling animals? Rabbi Judah in the name of Rabbi Naḥum: pushings. What are pushings? Touching. The main category of impurity makes everything impure, derivative impurity transmits impurity only to food and drink, or clay vessels. Food and drink and clay vessels cannot become main categories of impurity to transmit impurity. Gonorrhea. And here, we have stated: “The categories of work are 39.” Plowing is a category. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, these are derivatives of plowing.

All categories of work they learned from the Tabernacle. What kind of plowing was in the Tabernacle? They plowed to plant dyestuff. How much does one have to plow to become liable? Rabbi Mattaniah said, enough to plant a leek. Rabbi Aḥa bar Rav said, enough to plant a wheat sprout. There, we have stated: “Two green melon seeds make liable, two squash seeds, two Egyptian bean seeds.” It was stated, two Median wheat kernels. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Since wheat was so much appreciated they treated it like garden vegetables that are not eaten. For everything which improves the soil one is liable because of plowing: One who digs, who cuts, who inserts, who deposits dung, who hoes, who fertilizes, who sweeps, who sprinkles, who splits blocks, who clears forests, who sets fire to reed thickets or palm swamps, and following Rabbi Zeira a water canal prepares its banks for sowing, who removes stones, who builds terraces, who fills the rifts under olive trees, and who makes depressions for vines, and for anything which improves the soil one is liable because of plowing.

Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this statement by Rabbi Joḥanan. Then one who plows on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of plowing are permitted on a holiday. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Ila: ordinary plowing was not permitted. Rabbi Shammai said before Rabbi Yose: Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Ila, this is Rabbi Simeon’s, for Rabbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rabbi Yose met Rabbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rabbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rabbi Meir 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 23? But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yose, and Rabbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses 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 Rabbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he plowed, in any case he harvested. Rabbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rabbi Yose, for Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, 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 Rabbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

For any activity which quickens a fruit to ripen one is liable because of sowing. One who plants, who sinks, who grafts, who prunes, who trains, who removes dead branches, who dirties, who removes leaves, who dusts, who smokes, who removes worms, who sprinkles with ashes, who oils, who waters, who drills holes, who makes houses, and for anything which quickens a fruit to ripen one is liable because of sowing.

Rabbi Zeira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Kahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rabbi Zeira said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Kahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rabbi Zeira only on one count. Did not Rabbi Zeira say the pruner is like the planter, did he say perhaps the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. 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 Kahana and Rabbi Zeira he is guilty on two counts.

“And who harvests.” Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. 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 harvesting.

“He who binds into sheaves.” Rabbi Samuel bar Sosartai asked, what are the derivatives of binding into sheaves? Rabbi Yose: I heard the reason following Rabbi Simeon from Rabbi Aḥa, but I do not remember what I heard. What about it? One who pounds rice, barley, groats, is liable because of threshing. He who spreads out ṣeli figs, raisins, mesuslah, bucellata, is liable because of binding into sheaves. For anything involving food one is liable because of binding into sheaves, involving shells because of threshing.

A woman if she mixes wheat, because she is sifting; if she breaks the tips, because she is threshing; if she breaks the sides, 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 hammer.

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

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

This sausage maker, if he selects 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 hollow, because of building; if he cuts off bast, because of cutting; if he completes his work, because he is hitting with a hammer.

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

Rabbi 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 permitted. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Huna: One may hide a radish in salt on condition not to leave it there. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Huna: If there came his clothes from the tailor he may wear them; if they tore they tore. Rabbi Zeira 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 tear. Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Huna: If he took mortar fell on his garments he may rub it off with one hand, on condition that he not grind down. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Huna: mint, one is permitted, three is forbidden, two is questionable. One who bathes, Rav Huna and Rav Judah. One said, so it is permitted and so it is forbidden. But the other one said, so and so it is forbidden. Rabbi Abba bar Zamina went bathing with Rabbi Zeira; he did not let him do either one or the other.

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 switches.

Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya bar Ashi, one who spits absorbs it in his garment and does not worry. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi, the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi 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 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 wind one is liable because of winnowing.

“And who selects.” Rabbi 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 liability; if he took in his hand the volume of a dried fig and picked out he is liable.

Rabbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rabbi 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. Rabbi Mana said, my father Rabbi 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 Sabbath.

If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rabbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable. A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi 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 on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at one another place is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings, even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rabbi Immi. For Rabbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines and beans. He told them, be careful to eat the wood-chipsthe sticks the artichokes at the end.

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40. But did we not state: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”? Rabbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” And did we not state was it not stated, in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Ila ben Rabbi Abun: Grinding as a category was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rabbi Yose Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “No work shall be done on them” up to “and you shall guard the unleavened bread.”Exodus 12:16–17 It was stated. Rabbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rabbi Yose did not say so, but Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: “Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you,” up to “and you shall guard the unleavened bread.” Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement: “only, every, person,” are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

Rabbi Zeira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rabbi Zeira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rabbi Zeira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot.” Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging.” But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rabbi Ḥanina ben Yaqe said in the name of Rav Judah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, it does not follow Rabbi Judah, for it was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah, in truth also preparations for making food they permitted. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

“And who grinds.” He who pulverizes salt, clay shards, peppers, is liable because of grinding. He who cuts into little pieces chalk, gypsum, chaff, sand, dirt, is liable because of sifting. He who kneads chalk, gypsum, dust, eye-salve, plaster, drugs, is liable because of making dough. One who makes dough, or kneads dough, or forms dough, all are because of making dough. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal asked, there 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 here 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 dough.

He who burns potter’s clay, softens glass, melts pitch, melts musarin. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: One who melts down lead is liable because of cooking. 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, what? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden; Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Rabbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rabbi Zeriqan in the name of Ḥizqiah; for Ḥizqiah it was a problem: what if the Passover sacrifice was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias? 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 water.”Exodus 12:9 But he who said, it is permitted, “but only roasted in fire,” “its head with its feet and its innards.”

All these measures, 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 light egg, if to weave, the length of a double siṭ, if to spin, the width of a double siṭ.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “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 defect.” Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rabbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, he is not liable. Rabbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three categories.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, they 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 shearing. But here 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.

“Who bleaches it.” He who impregnates wood for vessels and ropes for a windlass. This woman who painted her face red and painted her spindle red. This tailor who took a thread into his mouth. Rav priest in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Asbestos is liable because of bleaching.

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

“Who dyes it.” What kind of dying was in the Tabernacle? They were clobbering an animal for red skins of rams. Rabbi Yose said, this implies that he is liable who causes a wound which results in echymosis. He who colors his lips red is liable. He who causes bleeding, because of taking away life force at that place. He who makes a shape, the first one is liable because of writing and the second one because of dying. If he left out a limb and another came and finished it, he is liable because of hitting with a hammer. Wringing and washing are the same category of work. It was stated: Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the dyers in Jerusalem made wringing a separate category of work. In the opinion of Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, there are 40 categories of work. Should we state this? We come to state only items to which everybody agrees.

One who makes ropes. The one who twines them is liable because of spinning. One who makes basket work of reeds, sieves, bast mats, is liable because of weaving. A woman when she prepares the loom, because of preparing. When she fastens the web, because of tying threads. When she erects the loom, because of building. When she hits, 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 tailors, 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-sheets, 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 thread.

“He who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties.” What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes. But was this not temporarily? Rabbi Yose says, because they were camping and traveling by the Word, was it like temporarily? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi 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 temporary permanent. Rabbi Phinehas said, they learned it from the curtain 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 one. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads. And where was this said? As Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the curtains. What is the reason? “The length of one curtain,”Exodus 26:2 that it should be an entity. If a thread broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Rabbi Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection.

Rabbi Hoshaiah stated, a basket of palm leaves for dates or a plate of palm leaves one may tear and open, only one may not tie.

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

Rabbi Ḥanina said, not until it comes down an entire side. Rabbi Yannai said, say to Rabbi Ḥanina, get out and read! Did we not state, “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, “Rabbi Judah says, only if there are three needle stitches”? That means that the thread goes down, and up, and down. But so and so. 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 needle. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose both say, only if it is knotted on both sides. The words of the rabbis disagree since Rabbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: He who straightens out the sides on the Sabbath is liable because of sewing. He should have said, because of sewing and tying knots.

Tearing applies to textiles and cutting to hides. 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.

3. One who catches a purple snail and crushes it. There are Tannaim who state that he is liable twice. There are Tannaim 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 catching? It comes like what Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Meir 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. Rabbi Abun said, its name was qereš. Rabbi Hoshaiah stated, a unicorn. “It is preferable to the Eternal to a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves.”Psalms 69:31 It is written, it sprouts a horn.

“Who slaughters it.” Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, there is no slaughter here; slaughter is a derivative of wounding. And why was it not stated with it? Only because we stated the proceedings of a meal it was stated with it.

“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 ruler. It follows that what Rabbi Samuel said in the name of Rabbi Abbahu, it is permitted to make tents from the hide of an impure animal.

“Who rubs it clean.” What kind of erasure was in the tabernacle? Zeir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: They were rubbing the hide on a pillar. One who rubbed hide clear on a pillar is liable. For what is he liable? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Levi, Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Judah ben Levi, because of rubbing clean. That is, if it is new. But if it be old, it is the disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages. Since they disagreed: “One who sweeps, who sprinkles, who makes cheese, who makes butter, who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable for a purification sacrifice. But the Sages say, it is because of Sabbath rest.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi 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? Rabbi Eliezer.

He who files off heads of poles is liable because of cutting. He who applies salve on a wet bandage is liable because of rubbing clean.

“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. Rabbi 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.” 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 dalet and he makes it resh, resh and he makes it dalet; he is liable because of writing and because of erasing.

4. What building was at the Sanctuary? They were putting the planks on top of the bases. But was this not temporary? Rabbi Yose says, because they were camping and traveling by the Word, it was as though permanent. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi 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 side. This implies even if was put on top of something else. Does it imply that building on implements is building? The bases are like soil.

It was stated: “If one brings the stone and another one the mortar, he who brings the mortar is liable. Rabbi Yose says, both are liable.” Rabbi Yose is of the opinion that stone without mortar is building. 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 row is liable.” For whom is this needed? For the rabbis. One who put up planks and one who put up adobe walls is liable because of building.

“And who tears down,” but only for a need. Rabbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: he who braids a palm-leaf basket is liable because of building. Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: he who blows a glass vessel is liable because of building. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: There are things which are close but far away; and there are things which are far away but close. He who braids a palm-leaf basket, and he who blows a glass vessel, and he who makes a vessel in a form, all are because of building. He who selects, who filters, and who sifts, all because of removing waste. Each of them is separately liable. And why was handing over not stated with them? Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the disagreement of Rabbi Akiva and the Sages. Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Judah ben Levi, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rabbi: In addition, there is handing over. And why was it not stated with them? All categories of work involve one, and this one two. All categories of work have derivatives, but this has no derivative.

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

5. Rabbi Ḥuna in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: This has been said for idol worship. Rabbi Joḥanan said, this has been said for things forbidden for usufruct. Rav Ḥisda said, this has been said for minimal quantities. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable for a purification sacrifice. There are Tannaim who state, a minimal amount. He who said he is liable for a purification sacrifice supports Rav Ḥisda. He who said a minimal amount supports Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joḥanan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: For example, the wad which she prepared for her menstrual period.

Mishnah

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

Halakhah

Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Yose the Galilean in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The more restrictive completes the less restrictive but the less restrictive does not complete the more restrictive. Grasses complete straw; straw does not complete grasses. There we have stated: “Cloth and sackcloth, sackcloth and leather, leather and bast matting combine with one another. Rabbi Simeon says, because they are apt to become impure as seats.” Rabbi Jeremiah asked, one understands that they combine for seats since as seats they equally are by a hand-width. How do we know it for hesseq? Rabbi Ezra said before Rabbi Mana, because they are equal in hesseq. He told him, we are asking about taking out and you are saying hesseq? Rabbi Eleazar bar Yose said before Rabbi Yose, because they are equal in hesseq. He said to him, should we state, taking out a small cup? Rabbi Ḥanania said, meat completes bone pieces, bone pieces does not complete meat; grasses complete straw, straw does not complete grasses. Rabbi Hoshaiah stated: If one took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a cow, took out straw for a goat filling the mouth of a goat, he is liable. Rabbi Ila said that Rabbi Joḥanan asked, if one took out food for a sick person filling the mouth of a sick person, should he be liable? Rabbi Hoshaiah agrees that if he took out straw for a cow filling the mouth of a goat that he is not liable; for you should not think that just as he has it for restriction he also has it for leniency. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, think of it if the dish was not the volume of a dried fig. Does the volume of a dried fig cancel the volume of a dried fig?

Zeir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: This is what you are saying for red ones. But black ones are separated.

Mishnah

1 One who brings out wine to mix a cup, milk for a sip, honey to put on a sore spot, oil to anoint a small limb, water to mix eye salve, and all other fluids by a quartarius, and all waste water by a quartarius. Rabbi Simeon says, all are by a quartarius; these measures were said only for those who store them.

Halakhah

“One who brings out wine to mix a cup,” etc. Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Joshiah, what is the measure of cups? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, the Four Cups which they said add up to an Italic quartarius of wine.

There, we have stated: “One removes four or five baskets.” Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Joshiah, what is the measure of baskets? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since we have stated there: “The contributions for the Temple were removed in three baskets of three seah each.”

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, it is Rabbi Judah’s. As it was stated “Water, a gulp; Rabbi Judah says, for mixing a cup. Wine, a gulp; Rabbi Judah says, for mixing a cup.” Mixed by how much? Let us hear from the following: “Water, a gulp; Rabbi Judah says, for mixing a cup. Wine, a gulp; Rabbi Judah says, for mixing a cup.” This implies even many cups. What is the measure of cups? Rabbi Abun said, tetarton is a quarter.

May one drink them together? Since Rabbi Joḥanan said about Hallel, if he heard it in the synagogue he has fulfilled his obligation, this implies that if he drank them together he fulfilled his obligation. May one drink them with interruptions? They said that he should drink, not that he should get drunk. If he drinks them with interruptions, would he not become drunk? May one fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine? Rabbi Hoshaiah stated, one may fulfill his obligation with Sabbatical wine. May one fulfill his obligation with spiced wine? Since Bar Qappara stated, spiced wine is like wine, which implies that one may fulfill his obligation with spiced wine. May one fulfill his obligation with mixed wine? Since Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: the Four Cups which they prescribed, one may fulfill his obligation either with unmixed or mixed, on condition that it have the taste and looks of wine. Rabbi Jeremiah said, it is meritorious to fulfill one’s obligation with red wine. What is the reason? “Do not see wine when it shows its red color.”Proverbs 23:31 It was stated, cooked for spice. May one fulfill his obligation with cooked wine? Rabbi Jonah said, one may fulfill his obligation with cooked wine. Rabbi Jonah follows his own opinion, since Rabbi Jonah drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Pentecost.

Rabbi Judah bar Ilai drank his four cups in the Passover night and had a headache until Tabernacles. A lady saw that his face was shiny. She said to him, old man, old man, one of three things applies to you. Either you are drunk from wine, or you are lending on interest, or you are raising pigs. He answered her, this woman’s spirit will be blown away, not one of these three things applies to me, but my learning is ever present with me, as it is written, “a man’s wisdom illuminates his face.”Ecclesiastes 8:1

Rabbi Abbahu descended to Tiberias. The students of Rabbi Joḥanan saw that his face was shiny. They said before Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Abbahu found a treasure. He asked them, why? They told him, his face is shiny. He said to them, maybe he understood a new teaching. He came to visit him. He asked him, what new teaching did you hear? He said, an old Tosefta. He recited about him, “a man’s wisdom illuminates his face.”

Rabbi Ḥanina said, the log of the Torah is the old Sepphorean eighth of fish sauce. Rabbi Jonah said, I know it. In the House of Rabbi Yannai they were measuring honey with it. It was stated, half of the old Tiberian eighth. Rabbi Joḥanan said, this one we used. Why did he not say, the old one? Because it was in his days. Some are saying, it was small, then was enlarged, and diminished, but it was not made small as before. What is the measure of a cup? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Judah bar Pazi, Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Two fingers by two fingers high a finger and a half and a third of a finger. It was stated, dried like the volume of an olive, the words of Rabbi Nathan. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Nathan follows Rabbi Simeon. Just as Rabbi Simeon says, a quartarius, so Rabbi Nathan says, a quartarius, when it jells it will have the volume of an olive.

Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: It happened that a mule of Rabbi’s household died and they declared its blood pure regarding the carcass. Rabbi Eleazar asked Rabbi Simon, how much? He did not answer him. He asked Rabbi Joshua ben Levi who told him, it is pure up to a quartarius. More than that is impure. Rabbi Eleazar felt badly that Rabbi Simon had not repeated the tradition to him. Rav Bevai was sitting stating this occurrence. Rabbi Isaac bar Kahana asked him, it is pure up to a quartarius; more than that impure? He was unfriendly to him. Rabbi Zeriqan asked him, because he asked you, you were unfriendly to him? He answered him, because my mind was not clear, as Rabbi Ḥanin said, “your life will hang far from you,”Deuteronomy 28:66 that is one who buys a year’s supply of wheat, “you will be fearful night and day,” that is one who buys from the Saracen, “and you will not believe in your survival,” that is one who buys from the retail store, and I am dependent on retail stores. What about it? “Rabbi Joshua ben Bathyra testified about blood of carcasses that it is pure.” What is meant by pure? It is pure in that it does not prepare, but for impurity it makes impure. There, we have stated “The blood of a crawling animal in is like its flesh, it makes impure but does not prepare. Nothing else is like this.” Nothing else is like this in the amount needed for its impurity. But its blood makes impure like its flesh. Rav Joseph said, he who says “impure” follows Rabbi Judah; he who says “pure” follows Rabbi Joshua ben Bathyra. Rav Eudaimon the emigrant told him, this is correct; Rabbi Judah was the instructor of the Patriarch.

It was stated: “Blood enough to smear on one eye.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: They stated this for a bat’s blood.

“Milk.” This you are saying about milk of a pure animal. But milk of an impure animal, enough to smear on one eye.

“Honey.” This you are saying about an old one. But current one enough to boil an easy egg.

“Oil to anoint a small limb,” but only a small limb of a newborn.

“Water to mix eye salve.” Rabbi Eleazar said, this you are saying about dew. But fresh water enough to moisten the face of the mortar.

“And all other fluids by a quartarius, and all waste water by a quartarius.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥisda: The Mishnah speaks of one who moves from house to house.

“Rabbi Simeon says, all are by a quartarius.” The Sages answer Rabbi Simeon: It is impossible to say honey by a quartarius, vinegar by a quartarius. But he answered them, just as you hold that all solid food combines for the volume of a dried date, so we hold that all drinks combine for a quartarius.

“These measures were said only for those who store them.” Rabbi Mana said, For those who store them in the most minute amount. And we have stated so against Rabbi Simeon: These measures were said only for those who throw them out. Therefore for those who store them in the most minute amount. And we have stated against the rabbis: These measures were said only for those who store them. Therefore for those who throw them out by a quartarius.

Mishnah

2 One who brings out rope to make a handle for a box, bast to make a hanger of a small or large sieve, Rabbi Judah says to make from it an instrument to measure a shoe for a child. Paper to write on it a toll collector’s receipt; and anybody who carries out a toll collector’s receipt is liable. Erased paper to tie over the the opening of a small perfume flask.

Halakhah

“One who brings out rope to make a handle for a box,” etc. This you are saying about soft ones but for hard ones enough to boil an easy egg.

“Bast to make a hanger for a small or large sieve.” This you are saying about the inner part. But for the outer parts to make two loops for a small or large sieve. It was stated: “Palm fiber to make a handle for an Egyptian basket.” This you are saying for soft ones, but for hard ones to make a border. If one took out a willow container he is liable. Palm leaves two. Vine shoots, for planting two, as animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood. One who brings out two hairs from a horse’s tail or a cow’s tail is liable because one uses them to make snares. Bristles from pig, there are Tannaim who state, two, and there are Tannaim who state, one. He who says two, of soft ones, but he who says one, of hard ones. Kernels, for planting, two, as animal feed a pig’s mouthful. What is its mouthful? One. Others say, the number five. If one took out calamint, hyssop, or thyme, if as human food, in the volume of a dried fig, if an animal feed a goat’s mouthful, as wood according to the measure of wood, if for sprinkling according to the measure of sprinkling.

“Rabbi Judah says to make from it an instrument to measure a shoe for a child.” But only a child who knows how to tie.

“Anybody who carries out a toll collector’s receipt is liable.” It was stated: “If one carries out a toll collector’s receipt, before he showed it to the toll collector he is liable, after he showed it to the toll collector he is not liable. Rabbi Judah says, even after he showed it to the toll collector he is liable since he may show it to another toll collector.” If one carries out a document of indebtedness, before he showed it to the debtor he is liable, after he showed it to the debtor he is not liable. Rabbi Judah says, even after he showed it to the debtor he is liable since he may show it to another debtor.

Erased paper It was stated: If it had empty space to write two letters on it he is liable.

Mishnah

3 Leather to make an amulet, split leather to write a mezuzzah on, parchment to write on it the smallest paragraph of phylacteries, which is “Shema Israel,”Deuteronomy 6:4–9 ink sufficient to write two letters with, kohl to apply to one eye, asphalt and sulphur to fix a hole, wax to close a small hole.

Halakhah

3. “Leather to make an amulet,” etc. There are Tannaim who state, to cover the amulet. He who says to make an amulet, if it is soft. But he who says to cover the amulet, if it is hard.

“Parchment to write on it the smallest paragraph of phylacteries, which is Shema “Israel,”Deuteronomy 6:4–9” that is, if he peels off the outer layer. But split leather to write both paragraphs of a mezuzzah on it.

“Ink.” If one carried out ink in a reed pen, sufficient to write two letters. If it was in a vessel it needs more. There, we have stated: “How much water is needed for one sprinkling?” Rabbi Jeremiah asked, would it not be reasonable that in a vessel it would need more?

“Kohl to apply to one eye.” Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, because a woman would paint one eye with kohl and appear in public. Rabbi Abun said, even the most dissolute whore would not do this. But a woman one of whose eyes hurts paints the other with kohl and appears in public. Rabbi Mana said, did we state that she hurts? But a woman would paint one eye with kohl, cover the other, and appear in public. “You captured my heart with one of your eyes.”Song of Solomon 4:9 The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya: Because a woman who is blind in one eye paints the other with kohl and appears in public.

“Asphalt and sulphur to fix a hole.” Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, they stated this about a gusher.

“Wax to close a small hole.” Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: To close a small crevice.

Mishnah

4 Glue to put on top of the snare, clay soil to make an opening for a goldsmith’s oven, Rabbi Judah says, to make a stand. Bran to put on the opening of a goldsmith’s oven. Lime to apply to a little girl, Rabbi Judah says, to treat a temple, Rabbi Nehemiah says, to prepare make-up.

Halakhah

4. What is clay soil? The gray kind. Samuel says, dust in order to cover the blood of a small bird. Samuel stated: Dust and ashes in order to cover the blood of a small bird.

It was stated: Potsherds of any size, bast of any size may be moved in the house. Rabbi Zeira in the name of Samuel: on condition that it be prepared. It also was stated as follows: The cover of an amphora and its potsherds may be moved in the house. If he threw them in the garbage it is forbidden to move them.

“Rabbi said, the words of Rabbi Judah are reasonable if it is egg-shaped; those of Rabbi Neḥemiah if it is beaten.”

Mishnah

5 Earth for a seal of merchandise, the words of Rabbi Akiva, but the Sages say, for seals of letters. Manure and sand to fertilize one cabbage stalk, the words of Rabbi Akiva, but the Sages say, to fertilize a stalk of leek. Coarse sand to add to a handful of lime, reed to make writing pen. If it was wide or splintered, to cook a most easily cooked egg, scrambled in a pan.

Halakhah

5. “Reed to make a writing pen,” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: But at least that it reaches to the finger joints. Rabbi Zeira asked, one understands up to here. Maybe up to here? There, we have stated: “A pen of which the writing tip was broken off is impure because of the eraser. If the eraser was broken off it is impure because of the writing tip.” Rabbi Zeira asked, one understand up to here. Maybe up to here? Rabbi Yose said, any “egg” which was stated in Kelim means the actual volume of an egg. In Šabbat in the volume of a dried fig, of an egg.

Mishnah

6 Bone to fill a spoon; Rabbi Judah says to make a tooth of a key. Glass to scrape the head of the weaver’s beam. A pebble to throw at a bird; Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, to throw at an animal.

Halakhah

6. “Bone to fill a spoonful; Rabbi Judah says to make a tooth of a key.” What is ḥaf? A key. There, we have stated: “If the teeth were taken, it is impure because of the holes. If the holes were covered, it is impure because of the teeth.” It seems that Rabbi Judah’s argument is inverted. There he calls ḥaf a protrusion and here he calls it a key.

“Glass to scrape the head of the weaver’s beam.” There it was stated, “of glass to pour oil into it.” And here, you are saying so? Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Maisha, Rabbi priest in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Here if it is thick, there if it is sharp. Some want to say, here about moving, there about bringing out.

“A pebble to throw at a bird.” Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: That he throw it after a bird and it would notice it. And similarly, that he throw it after an animal and it would notice it.

It was stated: “A smooth stone the size of an olive, or a walnut, or an egg, he may take and cleanse his feet with it. Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose said in his father’s name: up to a full hand.” Rav Judah said, Boetius ben Zenon was sitting and repeating before Rabbi; he said, so we are saying, it is necessary that he sit down and take it in his hand. He told him, everything is permitted except what is formed like a small sack. Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Yannai: it may be like the base of a small mortar of a spice dealer. Rabbi Yose said, they only said, of a spice. But not of spices. Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: A pebble on which grasses grew he may take and cleanse his feet with it. But if he plucks off from it on the Sabbath he is liable for a purification sacrifice. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: It is forbidden to cleanse oneself with any potsherd. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, not only potsherds but even handles of amphoras, and anything which was brought into the fire and came out again. Rabbi Yose ben Yose said, a pebble which had been used by another person and water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah one may not use to cleanse himself. Rabbi Ḥanania in the name of Rabbi Mana: It is forbidden to cleanse himself with water which a dog licked. And it was stated so: One cleans himself neither with a dog’s mouth, nor in presence of a dog, nor with water which the dog had licked off, nor with water in a volume of less than 40 se’ah. And if somebody washes in the bath house or washes in a bathtub, it is bad for hemorrhoids. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Five things were said about a reed blade: One does not use it to slaughter, nor to circumcise, nor to clean teeth with it, nor does one use it to cut meat on the table, nor does one cleanse himself, because an evil spirit resides on it.

Mishnah

7 A potsherd to put between one half-brick and another, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says, to carry fire with it. Rabbi Yose says, to fill it with a quartarius. Rabbi Meir said, even though it is no proof, it is a hint: “that in its splinters no shard be found to catch fire from the blaze.”Isaiah 30:14 Rabbi Yose told him, from there is proof, “to draw water from the pit.”

Halakhah

7. “A potsherd of any size to put between one half brick,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one may use it to sanctify; Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish says, one may not use it to sanctify. Rabbi Eleazar asked, in Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish’s opinion, why may one not use it to sanctify? Because it is impervious to impurity. But are not vessels made of cow dung, stone vessels, earthen vessels impervious to impurity and one may use them to sanctify! But because it does not contain a quartarius. But does not Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish agree that one may sanctify using an arbitrarily small complete clay vessel? It is that the only reason is that it does not have the appellation “vessel.” Then it is difficult for Rabbi Joḥanan. It is not enough to disqualify the body but one may use it to sanctify? But this follows Rabbi Yose, for “Rabbi Yose said, also the most minute amount of clay vessel.” Did not Rabbi Yose say this only for a complete one, and do we not deal here with a broken one? What Rabbi Ḥiyya stated supports Rabbi Joḥanan; what Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated supports Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish.

Mishnah

1 Rabbi Akiva says, from where that idolatry makes impure by load like a menstruating woman? For it is said, “you shall throw it away like feeling miserable; you will call it excrement.”Isaiah 30:22 Since the menstruating makes impure by load, idolatry also makes impure by load.

Halakhah

There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, and there is written abomination about idolatry, and there is written abomination about vermin. There is written abomination about the menstruating woman, “for anybody who would commit any of these abomination” s, etc. Abomination about idolatry, “and do not bring any abomination into your house,”Deuteronomy 7:26 etc. Abomination about vermin, “do not eat any abomination.”Deuteronomy 14:3 But I do not know to which of them it was compared. Rabbi Akiva says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rabbi Zeriqan in the name of Rav Judah, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rabbi Akiva agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abomination s of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does idolatry in the size of a lentil also impart impurity? Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead.”Psalms 106:28 As the dead in the volume of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the volume of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? “Tearing down, tearing down” from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rabbi Ḥanania said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile impurity and does not compare for the strict? Rabbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile impurity attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But a whole one even in the most minute size, as Rabbi Ḥuna, Rabbi Ḥama bar Gorion said in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean: “They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.”Judges 8:33

What is Rabbi Akiva’s reason? “You should treat it as an abomination,”Deuteronomy 7:26 like a menstruating woman. What is the rabbis’ reason? “You should detest it,” like vermin. How do the rabbis uphold Rabbi Akiva’s reason, “you should treat it as abomination”? Treat it as excrement, make it vile. How does Rabbi Akiva uphold the rabbis’ reason, “you should treat it as abomination”? Call it feces, treat it as excrement, make it vile. How do we know “make it vile” for the rabbis? Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: “you shall call it excrement”; treat it as excrement, make it vile What is called King’s Face is called Dog’s Face. Spring of the Cup Spring of the Thorn. The Place of Fortune Place of Undress. Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Huna: “The Ai which is near Bet-Awen East of Bethel.”Joshua 7:2 Earlier it was called Bethel but now one calls it Bet-Awen. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: If one does not want to call it ‘Omda one calls it ‘Amida since Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said, there one calls a good deed ʿomda but the flow of urine ‘amida. How does Rabbi Akiva interpret “you shall call it excrement”? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abin, Rav Huna in the name of Rav Joseph: from here that one does not tell anybody to leave unless he entered with his head and most of his body.

There exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. Also there exists a baraita which says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals. The one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman, is understandable. But concerning the one who says, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like crawling animals, is it not called “unwell” only for its appurtenances? “You will defile the coating of your silver gods and the clothing of your molten gold.” Explain it as a case where they were engraved on its body. Rabbi Jacob of Kefar Ḥanan said, explain it if one worships the ephod itself, similar to what is written, “Gideon turned it into an ephod.”Judges 8:27 Our Mishnah follows him who said, idols are like a menstruating woman and its appurtenances are like a menstruating woman. But did we not state: “its stones, its wood, and its dust make impure like a crawling animal”? Explain it as a case where he worshipped the house itself and then built it up. But did we not state “there are three houses”? Explain it as a case where he worshipped the house itself and then renovated it, as Rabbi Abba, Rab Huna said in the name of Rav: One who worships a house makes it forbidden. Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If somebody dedicates a house one does commit larceny with it. Rabbi Zeira said, about this the rabbis disagree. For him who says that he forbade it one may commit larceny with it, but for him who says that he does not forbid it, one does not commit larceny with it? Rabbi Ḥaggai objected to Rabbi Yose, does not a Mishnah disagree with Rav? “A trough in a rock: one does not fill from it.” Because he excavated it and after that combined it. Then not if he fixed it and after that excavated it. Is this house not as if he excavated it and after that combined it? What does Rav do with it? He explains that the hewing of stones is the completion of work on them. Does this not disagree with Rabbi Joḥanan, since Rabbi Joḥanan said, an idol which was broken is forbidden. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he cannot restore it in its entirety it is permitted according to everybody. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of stones”? Explain it as meaning that he worshipped every single stone and then builds with them. Even with Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish this does not disagree, as Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, an idol which was broken is permitted. And so we are thinking to say if in the future he can restore it in its entirety it is forbidden according to everybody, and Rabbi Yudan, the father of Rabbi Mattaniah, said, if they remain in their place is this not as if in the future he can restore it in its entirety? And these remain at their place. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a tree he does not make forbidden. But did we not state, “there are three kinds of Ashera”? Explain it as meaning that he worshipped a vine and then planted it.

Levi said, one who worships a house makes it forbidden, a cave he does not make forbidden. What is the difference between a house and a cave? Rabbi Ḥanania the son of Rabbi Hillel said, a house was separated at some time; a cave never was separated.

Mishnah

2 How do we know that a ship is pure? For it is said, “the way of a ship in the heart of the Sea.”Proverbs 30:19 How do we know that a garden bed that is six by six hand-breadths one may sow with five kinds of seeds, four at its four sides and one in the middle? For it is said, “for like the earth it will bring out its plants and like a garden it will cause it to grow its sown seeds.”Isaiah 61:11

Halakhah

2. Did you have to learn from the sea, just as the sea is pure so also the ship is pure? Did you not learn this from the sack? The sack may be used both on sea and on dry land; a ship can be used on sea but cannot be used on dry land. The rabbis of Caesarea say, this is about a clay vessel. Since the sack teaches only about what is written in the paragraph, this excludes clay vessels which are not mentioned in the paragraph so that the sack could have taught about it

“Its sown seeds”: the minimum of seeds are two. Rabbi Samuel bar Sisarta said, from two you infer four. Just as for two you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously, so for four you start at the beginning of six and reduce continuously. It is impossible that there should not be a free space to plant in the middle. Rabbi Jonah said, working space joins working space but a kind does not meet another kind to jail it. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: “Its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” That follows Rabbi Judah, since Rabbi Judah said six, “seed, its seed, its seeds, its sown seeds.” Rabbi Ḥaggai said, zarʿeha has five letters; everywhere I find vav I delete it. This was asked of Rabbi Ḥuna, the scribe of the assembly, and he said, zeruʿeha is written plene. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: All inside of six. Kahana in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: All at the outside of six. Then we should state “nine!” Rabbi Tanḥum from Bostra said, that is true. But our Mishnah speaks of a garden bed in the middle of garden beds.

Mishnah

3 How do we know that one who loses semen on the third day is impure? For it is said, “be prepared for three days, do not touch a woman.”Exodus 19:15 How do we know that one washes a baby on the third day if it falls on a Sabbath? For it is said, “it was on the third day when they hurt.”Genesis 34:25 How do we know that one ties a crimson band to the head of the scapegoat? For it is said, “if your sins were like scarlet they will be snow white,”Isaiah 1:18 etc.

Halakhah

3. Rabbi Joḥanan said, they learned from Sinai. Moses came down on the third day of the week and told them, “be prepared for three days, do not approach a woman.”Exodus 19:15 For any one who separated on the third day, there is the third, the night of the fourth, and the fourth, the night of the fifth, and the fifth. On the sixth, if she ejected in the night she was impure, during the day pure. For any one who separated on the fourth day, there is the fourth, the night of the fifth, and the fifth. On the sixth, if she ejected in the night she was impure, during the day pure. Rabbi Joḥanan said, this was on Sinai. But for future generations either four or six; Rabbi Akiva says, forever there are five, also for future generations.

There, we have stated: “One who loses semen on the third day is pure, the words of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Ishmael says, sometimes they are four terms, sometimes they are five, sometimes they are six. Rabbi Akiva says, always they are five. If part of the first term had elapsed, one completes it by the sixth term.” Therefore Rabbi Ishmael makes the day one term and the night one term; Rabbi Akiva makes the day one term and the night one term. In what do they differ? They differ in complete terms. Rabbi Ishmael treats part of a term like the whole, but Rabbi Akiva does not treat part of a term like the whole. It was stated so about Rabbi Akiva: “Therefore if part of the first term had elapsed, one completes it by the sixth term.” It was stated: Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, day and night each are a term, and part of a term is like the whole. It was stated so about Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah: Sometimes after slightly more than a day she is pure; sometimes after slightly less than two days she is impure. How does it happen that after slightly more than a day she is pure? She had intercourse Friday afternoon before sundown and lost Saturday night after nightfall; there is slightly more than a day she is pure. How does it happen that after slightly less than two days she is impure? She had intercourse Friday night after sundown and lost Sunday night before nightfall; there is slightly less than two days she is impure. Rabbi Joḥanan said, from the words of all of them, Israel received the Torah as immersed on the same day. That is, the women; but the men already were purified. What is the reason? “Sanctify them today and tomorrow and let them wash their garments.”Exodus 19:10 Rabbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, and Rabbi Ishmael, and Rabbi Akiva. But the word of the Sages is, up to three days; after that it decayed. This parallels what Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: “This are the instructions for the sufferer from gonorrhea and from whom semen is ejaculated.”Leviticus 15:32 Since the instructions of the sufferer from gonorrhea are based on three days, also the instructions for semen are up to three days.

We have stated: “One washes the baby.” It was stated in the House of Rav Rabbi: “One washes the circumcision.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who says, “one washes the baby.” Rabbi Yose said, you are forced to say, one washes the baby. Samuel stated, one never witholds either oil or warm water from a wound on the Sabbath. Rabbi Yose said, my teacher Rabbi Zeira always was saying to me, state in your Mishnah, not only this but one sprinkles warm water on a wound on the Sabbath. If you are saying, “one washes the circumcision,” what is the difference between an adult and a baby?

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar. Practice follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Abbin in the name of Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s reason: “it was on the third day when they hurt.”Genesis 34:25 It does not say, “when it hurt,” but “when they hurt,” at a time when all their limbs hurt them. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joḥanan ordered for the women having newborns, that all treatments which you give on a weekday should be given on the Sabbath. This is necessary for the case that the third day falls on a Sabbath. Samuel said, because of the danger. Rabbi Yose asked, if it is because of the danger one heats hot water for him! Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: One heats hot water for him. And it was stated thus: A person heats a linen cloth and puts it on a wound his belly on the Sabbath. A person may not take a bottle full of hot water and put it on his belly on the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, on the contrary it is permitted.

Originally they were tying it to their windows; some of them were turning white and some turning red; these were ashamed in front of the others. They changed and tied it to the door of the Sanctuary. Some years it was turning white, in others turning red. They changed and tied it to the rock.

It is written, “let us go and argue, says the Eternal,”Isaiah 1:18 etc. It was stated, Rabbi Eliezer said, “If your sins were like years,” etc., like the years from Heaven to Earth, “they will be snow white”; more than that, “they shall be like wool.” Rabbi Joshua said, “if your sins were like years,” like the years of the patriarchs, “they will be snow white”; more than that, “they shall be like wool.” Rabbi Yudan bar Pazi said, “If your sins were like years they will be snow white,” the first time, “if they were like purple they shall be like wool,” the second time. But the rabbis said, If the sins of a person are like his years, “they will be snow white”; more than that, “they shall be like wool.” Rabbi Yudan Antordiyya said, at a time when a person’s sins are light, “they will be snow white”; at a time when they are serious, “they shall be like wool.”

Mishnah

4 How do we know that anointing is like drinking on the Day of Atonement? Even though it is no proof, there is a hint, as it is said, “it came like water into him and like oil in his bones.”Psalms 109:18

Halakhah

4. “How do we know that anointing,” etc. As we have stated: On the Sabbath both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are permitted. On the Day of Atonement, both anointing for pleasure and anointing not for pleasure are forbidden. On the Ninth of Av and public fasts, anointing for pleasure is forbidden but anointing not for pleasure are permitted.

It was stated: Anointing is equal to drinking regarding prohibition and reparation but not punishment. On the day of Atonement regarding prohibition but not punishment. But was it not stated, “they shall not desecrate,”Leviticus 22:15 to include him who anoints or drinks? Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is no “anoints” there. Rabbi Abba Mari said, if there is no “anoints” there is no “drinks.” For if it were not so, do matters combine which come from two different prohibitions? How do we know that there is a clear commandment? Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Simai: “I did not give from it to the dead.”Deuteronomy 26:14 Where do we hold? If not to bring a casket or shrouds for him, this is forbidden for the living, therefore certainly for the dead. What is permitted for the living but prohibited for the dead? I am saying that this is anointing.

Mishnah

5 One who brings out wood to cook an easily cooked egg, spices to spice an easily cooked egg, and these combine one with the other. Shells of walnuts, skins of pomegranates, isatis, and madder to dye a small tissue like a hair net. Soda, and soap, Cimolian earth, and potash, to wash a small tissue like a hair net; Rabbi Judah says, to use on a stain.

Halakhah

5. This is difficult. May cumin and salt combine? Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: they taught this about sweeteners.

There, we have stated: “The measure for one who bleaches, who beats flax, or who dyes, or who spins,” and here you are saying so? The one who dyes, here one who brings out to dye.

Neter is nitron. Birit is qimun. Biritah is kali. ʾAshlag, Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, ʾaṣrot ruaḥ.

Mishnah

6 Pepper in any amount, ʿiṭran in any amount, spices and metals in any amount. Of the altar’s dust, of the altar’s stones, of rot of scrolls, of rot of their bindings the most minute amount since one collects them to hide them away. Rabbi Judah says, also one who takes out the most minute amount of appurtenances of idol worship, as it is said, “nothing of the ban shall cling to your hand.”Deuteronomy 13:17

Halakhah

6. It was stated: Also bad smell in any amount. Rabbi Ila said, also Rabbi Simeon agrees to this. Rabbi Simeon agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct.

Mishnah

7 One who takes out a peddler’s bag, even though it contains many kinds, is liable only for one purification sacrifice. Garden seeds less than the volume of a dried fig; Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said, five. Green melon seeds two, squash seeds two, Egyptian bean seeds two. A live locust in any amount, dead in the volume of a dried fig. A vineyard bird either live or dead in any amount since one keeps it as medicine. Rabbi Judah says, also one who brings out a dead locust in the most minute amount since one keeps it as a toy for children.

Halakhah

7. It is difficult. If he continues to bring out in one forgetting, is he not liable only once? For whom is it necessary? For Rabbi Eliezer. That you should not say, many kinds should be treated like as many forgettings and he would be liable for each single one. Therefore it was necessary to say that he is liable only once.

“Garden seeds less than the volume of a dried fig; Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra said, five.” What is Rabbi Judah ben Bathyra’s reason? Because this is what one usually sows in a garden bed.

“Green melon seeds two, squash seeds two, Egyptian bean seeds two.” It was stated: Median wheat two. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Because wheat was so much in esteem they treated it like garden vegetables which are not eaten.

“A live locust in the most minute amount, dead in the volume of a dried fig.” That means, if it is pure. But if it is impure, a dog’s mouthful.

“A vineyard bird either live or dead in any amount since one keeps it as medicine.” Rabbi Aḥa said, for a woman with rough skin rubs in with it and she is healed. There, they said, a person who wants to renounce sexual activity eats half of it and keeps half of it. The left hand part is forbidden, the right hand part is permitted. If anything was lost or missing he has no recourse ever. What should he do? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, he preserves it in a honey flask.

“Rabbi Judah says, also one who brings out a dead locust in the most minute amount.” Therefore pure in the amount of a dried fig whether alive or dead. Rabbi Judah follows his own opinion since Rabbi Judah says one does not play with pure food. But is there not written, “would you play with him as with a bird?”Job 41:5 Is it not permitted out of a prohibition? But is it not written, “as with a bird”? Rabbi Mattaniah said, since it is lacking slaughter it is as if impure.

Mishnah

1 One who stores as seeds, as sample, or as medicine, if he takes out on the Sabbath he is liable for it in the most minute amount; but every other person is liable only for its quantity. If he brought it back he is liable only for its quantity.

Halakhah

“One who stores as seeds,” etc. Rabbi Jeremiah said, Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina asked, is the Mishnah Rabbi Judah’s? For Rabbi Judah said, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable. Rabbi Judah bar Pazi came in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina: It is Rabbi Judah’s. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina said, this comes only for the sample, because the buyer already was satisfied. But as to seeds and medicines even for the most minute amount he is liable. If one stored it and another took it out, he is not liable; Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar declares him liable. Where do we hold? If he took it out on the second’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is not liable; if he took it out on the first’s initiative, everybody agrees that he is liable. But we must hold when it was not explained. The rabbis say, it is a common presumption that he took it out on the second’s initiative; Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says that it is a common presumption that he took it out on the first’s initiative.

Mishnah

2 He who takes out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold, whether afterwards either he or another person took it out, is not liable since he did not complete his action in one piece. If a basket full of produce was put on the outer threshold, even if most of the produce is outside one is not liable until one take out the entire basket.

Halakhah

2. Ḥizqiah said, the Mishnah is about a basket full of green melon and squash, where part of the food is inside and part outside. But a basket full of grain, when he took out in the volume of a dried fig he is liable. They said, Rabbi Joḥanan’s statement disagrees, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: A crocheted cloth part of which was inside and part outside, if he took from one side and put it down on the other he is not liable. If he lifted it, only if he lifted it entirely at the same time.

Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yose: Explain it as a case where it was broken open. He said to him, but did we not state “a basket”; can you say, a basket broken open? What about this? Nothing is moved in the public domain and becomes karmelit except a human. Ḥizqiah said, if he took out a bundle from a private to the public domain and before he put it down already its head was higher than ten hand-breadths, since it does not completely rest in the public domain he is not liable. Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, if he took out a beam from a private to the public domain and before he put it down already its head was in another private domain, since it does not completely rest in the public domain he is not liable. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if a stone is in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and four hand-breadths wide, anybody who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it is liable. Samuel said, a basket full of produce put into the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and four hand-breadths wide, anybody who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it is not liable. Do they disagree? Here, if it was turned on its side, there if it was not turned on its side. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, if one moved a stone in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and four hand-breadths wide, how do you treat it? As one who moves from it to the public domain or from the public domain to it, or from the public domain to a different public domain? The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rabbi Joḥanan asked: If one piles five hand-breadths on top of five, how do you treat it? As one who moves from a private domain to karmelit, from karmelit to a private domain, from a private domain to another private domain?

Mishnah

3 One who takes out either with his right hand, or with his left hand, or in his bosom, or on his shoulder, is liable since this was the carrying of the Kehatites. On the back of his hand, on his foot, in his mouth, on his elbow, in his ear, or in his hair, or in his money belt whose opening is downward, between his belt and his garment, or in the seam of his garment, in his shoe, or in his sandal, he is not liable since he did not take out in the way of takers-out.

Halakhah

Rabbi Yose asked: This implies that if somebody took out the volume of a dried fig on his shoulder, he is liable. Is that the carrying of the Kehatites? But it is written, “the office of Eleazar, Aaron’s son, the priest: The oil for illumination, the spice incense, the permanent flour offering,”Numbers 4:16 “and the anointing oil.” The oil for illumination in his right hand, the spice incense in his left hand, the permanent flour offering of that day hanging on his arm. Where was the anointing oil? Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: a small flask he had on his money belt.

If you say that he was unimportant, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written: “The prince of the princes of the Levites, Eleazar, Aaron’s son.”Numbers 3:32 A duke of dukes he was. The great Rabbi Judah said, he was the executive officer. “And why was his title Markol? Because he had the say about everything.” Only there is no greatness in the king’s palace. Rabbi Levi said, it is written, “the priest shall dress in linen garment”Leviticus 6:10 ... “and remove the ashes,” only there is no greatness in the king’s palace.

Mishnah

4 One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable. In truth a woman who ties to her sinar whether in front or back is liable since it is apt to move. Rabbi Judah says, the same holds for messengers.

Halakhah

There, we have stated: “Rabbi Simeon from Shezur and Rabbi Simeon say, they did not disagree about anything which falls under the same appellation that he is liable. Where did they disagree? About something which is because of two appellations, where Rabbi Eliezer holds him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rabbi Joshua holds him not liable.” Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, but not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable. “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. But following him who said two appellations? Here it is one appellation and he is liable. Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: it is a case of Tannaim. He who says there “liable,” also here “liable”; he who says there “not liable,” also here “not liable.”

“In truth.” Rabbi Eliezer said, any place where “in truth” was stated it is practice going back to Moses on Sinai.

Mishnah

5 He who takes out foodstuffs less than a measure in a vessel is not liable even for the vessel since the vessel is an accessory to it, for a living person on a bier he is not liable even for the bier since the vessel is an accessory to him. For a dead person on a bier he is liable, and so for the volume of an olive from a dead person, or the volume of an olive from a carcass, or of a lentil from a crawling animal one is liable, but Rabbi Simeon declares not liable. He who takes out a loaf into the public domain is liable. If two together took it out they are not liable. If one alone is unable to take it out and two took it out they are liable, but Rabbi Simeon declares them not liable.

Halakhah

“When she was doing it.”Leviticus 4:27 The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rabbi Joshua the Southerner said before Rabbi Yasa Yose in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: A weaver’s beam, Rabbi declares not liable, but Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon said, he is liable. Rabbi said to him, so I heard from your father. He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served him sitting. But was Rabbi the student of Rabbi Simeon bar ben Yoḥai? Was he not the student of Rabbi Jacob bar Qodshai Qorshai? But so he must have said to him, He answered him, I served my father standing more than you served your teacher sitting. When Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon came to the house of assembly, Rabbi’s face darkened. His father told him, it is correct so, for he is a lion son of a lion, but you are a lion son of a jackal. When Rabbi Eleazar he died, Rabbi sent to ask his wife in marriage. She said to him, a vessel which was used in holiness should be used in a profane way?

6. Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, what you are saying is about when the vessel is needed, as for mulberries. But if they do not need their vessel he is liable also for the vessel.

“A living person on a bier is not liable even for the bier,” for the living carries himself. “A dead person on a bier is liable,” the opinion of everybody? Was it not stated, also bad smell in the most minute amount? Rabbi Ila said, also Rabbi Simeon agrees to this. Rabbi Simeon also agrees in cases of prohibitions of usufruct. Rabbi Yudan said, explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog. It was stated: For half the volume of an olive of a corpse and half the volume of an olive of a carcass and less than the volume of a lentil of a crawling animal one is liable, but Rabbi Simeon declares not liable. What is Rabbi Simeon’s reason? The impurity already is eliminated. What is the rabbis’ reason? Following Rabbi Yudan explain it if the corpse is a Gentile’s without bad smell and he takes it out for his dog.

Mishnah

6 He who takes off his fingernails one with the other or with his teeth, and similarly his hair, or his mustache, or his beard, and similarly the woman who braids, or who puts on kohl, or puts on make-up, Rabbi Eliezer declares liable for a purification sacrifice but the Sages say because of Sabbath rest. One who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is liable, with no hole is not liable, but Rabbi Simeon declares not liable in either case.

Halakhah

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina: Where do they differ? If he himself took them but if another took them they are disgusting. The words of the Sages, Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Naḥum in the name of Rav, he is never liable unless he take them with a grooming knife. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Ḥanina: The one who braids is liable because of building. This follows what Rabbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Banaya: At our place they call builder one who is plaiting. Rabbi Zeira said, would it not be reasonable that it should be because of weaving? The argument of Rabbi Zeira is inverted, for there said Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, one who plaits three hairs of a human is liable because of weaving; Rabbi Zeira said, is it not spinning rather than weaving? And here he says so! There if they are few, here for many. That is what you say about a human, but for an animal it is pure, as it was stated: One who makes a belt under the heart, to beautify, or to fasten the bags, to hang it around an animal’s neck, is pure. That is, for simple ones. But if the are folded, whether for human or for animal they are impure. The one who applies kohl is liable because of writing; the one who puts on make-up is liable because of dyeing.

Isaac bar Orion said, where do they disagree? If he did not pluck it off over the hole. But if he plucked it off over the hole also Rabbi Simeon will agree. Rabbi Jeremiah asked: If everything was in the Land but the hole outside the Land? It turns out that you may say what was questionable for Rabbi Jeremiah was obvious for Isaac bar Orion. These are it. But there are others! “A flower pot with a hole sanctifies in a vineyard, one without a hole does not sanctify.” “A flower pot with a hole cannot prepare plants, one without a hole prepares.” “He who plucks from a flower pot with a hole is liable, from one without a hole he is not liable.” Rabbi Yose referred to it as anonymous statement, Rabbi Ḥanania quoted it in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The Torah extended the purity of growing plants: “If any of their cadavers falls on any sown seed apt to be sown,”Leviticus 11:37 etc.

Mishnah

1 If one throws from a private domain to the public domain or from the public domain to a private domain, he is liable. From a private domain to another private domain when a public domain is between them, Rabbi Akiva declares him liable but the Sages declare him not liable.

Halakhah

“If one throws from a private domain,” etc. Throwing is a derivative of transporting.

Is there no difference, whether according to his opinion or that of the rabbis, only if it came to rest from a public domain into a private domain? In Rabbi’s opinion, even if it did not come to rest; in the rabbis’ opinion, only if it came to rest. For Rabbi Abba bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Rabbi declared liable only for a private domain which was roofed. The word of Rabbi Joḥanan implies, even if it was not roofed, for Rabbi Immi said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions. Rabbi Immi asked Rabbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rabbi, since Rabbi considers partitions as solidly filled up? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion. Could one not object that Rabbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed? What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rabbi Ila said, about the Sabbath it is written: “You shall not do any work”Exodus 20:10; it may make itself automatically. But here “he shall deliver into her hand,”Deuteronomy 24:1 into her domain.

Samuel said, they taught this only about lower than ten hand-breadths. Therefore higher than ten hand-breadths it is forbidden. The statement of Rabbi Eleazar implied that even higher than ten hand-breadths it is permitted. For Rabbi Ila said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, Rabbi Akiva learned from the carts; and were the carts not higher than ten hand-breadths? Some Tannaim state “how is this”; some do not state “how is this.” In Rabbi Eleazar’s opinion there is “how is this,” in Samuels’s opinion there is no “how is this.”

Rabbi Isaac ben Rabbi Eleazar asked: If one threw from a private domain to the public domain and remembered when it was over the public domain, in Rabbi Akiva’s opinion it should be considered as if it rested in the public domain and he should be liable twice. Rabbi Ḥuna said, Rabbi Akiva made him liable only by means of the second private domain.

Rabbi Abbahu says in the name of Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If one was standing in the public domain and threw higher than ten hand-breadths. One sees that if it fell down it would come to rest within four cubits he will not be liable, otherwise he will be liable. But did not Samuel state: From public domain to public domain with a private domain in the middle, one sees that if it fell it would come to rest within four cubits he will not be liable, otherwise he will be liable. There, you are saying that public domain is not joining, but here you are saying that public domain is joining? Rabbi Ḥuna said, there where if it falls down the ground under it is private domain but here where if it falls down the ground under it is public domain.

It was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: One who threw four cubits in the public domain is liable. Rabbi Judah considers four cubits in the public domain a separate category of work. In Rabbi Judah’s opinion there are 40 categories of work: should we not state this? We come to state only things about which everybody agrees. Rabbi Zeira, Rabbi Joshia in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Judah learned this from those who were sewing the curtains, for those sewing the curtains were throwing the needles one to another. Is that not karmelit? Rabbi Ḥinena said, they were throwing sideways.

Mishnah

2 How is this? Two balconies one vis-a-vis the other in the public domain: one who hands over or throws from one to the other is not liable. If they both were on the same floor, the one who hands over is liable but the one who throws is not liable, for this was the service of the Levites. Two carts, one parallel to the other in the public domain: they used to hand over from one to the other but did not throw. The enclosure of a cistern or a rock high ten hand-breadths and wide four hand-breadths: one who takes from them or puts on them is liable, less than this he is not liable.

Halakhah

2. Rav said, here there is no “not liable” but “permitted.” In Rav’s opinion, higher than ten hand-breadths is permitted. In Samuel’s opinion, higher than ten hand-breadths is forbidden. Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish: on condition that the public domain surround it from all sides. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, even from one side. From these carts. Were the carts not higher than ten hand-breadths? Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Maisha: only by two persons. Everywhere you are saying, two persons acting together are not liable, but here you are saying, two persons acting together are liable. There is a difference, because this was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting. What was the office of the Levites in the Tent of Meeting? Two carts one parallel to the other in the public domain. They were handing the planks from one to the other but not throwing. Bar Qappara stated, not to treat the planks with contempt.

Rabbi Joḥanan said, what is standing and the hollow combine together to ten to four, but only if what is standing is more than the hollow. Rabbi Zeira asked, only if what is standing on each side is more? Rabbi Yose said, it is obvious for Rabbi Zeira that what is standing on one side only does not combine; it is obvious for him that not one side must be more. He only questions even the second standing part.

“The enclosure of a cistern or a rock high ten hand-breadths and wide four hand-breadths.” Where do we hold? If ten high and four wide, it is a domain by itself. Ten high but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Issi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways; on condition that he not exchange. But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high. But did not Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, say, anything which hinders access in the public domain is called karmelit? Rabbi Yudan said, what Ḥiyya, the son of Rav, said refers to the middle, but on the side the public domain invalidates it.

Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.” There, we have stated: “He who opens a boil on the Sabbath, if to make an opening he is liable, if to remove fluid he is not liable.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.” There, we have stated: “One who catches a snake on the Sabbath, if he is active that it should not bite him he is not liable, if for medicine he is liable.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.” There, we have stated: “About rural dishes that they are pure in a tent with a corpse but impure if carried by a sufferer from gonorrhea.” Rabbi Zeira said, this is correct. If for a need, that is what we have stated, “if for medicine he is liable.” This implies that there is here no “not liable” but “permitted.”

Mishnah

3 One who throws four cubits to a wall higher than ten hand-breadths is like one who throws in the air, lower than ten hand-breadths is like one who throws on the ground and one who throws four cubits on the ground is liable. One who threw less than four cubits and it rolled further than four cubits is not liable; one who threw more than four cubits and it rolled back within four cubits is liable.

Halakhah

3. Our Mishnah applies if there is no hole there, but if there is a hole, there is the disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis. In the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whether it is four by four or it is not four by four one considers the wall as carved out. In the rabbis’ opinion, if it is four by four one considers the wall as carved out, otherwise one does not consider the wall as carved out but as closed. Rav Ḥisda said, if it extends slanting. But will it not finally descend? Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, explain it that it was a soft fig cake and it stuck. Rabbi Ḥaggai asked Rabbi Yose, does this not imply that the declivity of a terrace belongs to the level below? He said to him, there the vegetables profit from the terrace but here people rub it and it falls down. If it would say, if there is a hole in the wall and it profits from the hole just as vegetables profit from the terrace, you would be justified.

Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If the place was inclined, as we have stated, “one who threw more than four cubits and it rolled beyond four cubits is liable.” There came Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, only if it came to rest.

Mishnah

4 One who throws four cubits in the ocean is not liable. If there was a shallow spot in the water and a public thoroughfare passed through it, one who throws four cubits into it is liable. What is a shallow spot in the water? Less than ten hand-breadths. Shallow water and a public thoroughfare passed through it: one who throws four cubits in it is liable.

Halakhah

4. Not only four cubits in the sea, but even if he threw across the entire sea he is not liable, since any sea is called karmelit.

And why was it stated twice? Rabbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rabbi Phinehas, if there were two shallows, one which was used as a thoroughfare and one used by the public only in case of emergency. That you should not say, since the public are using it only in case of emergency it is not public domain but private domain, therefore it was necessary to say that it is public domain.

Mishnah

5 He who throws from the sea to dry land, or from dry land to the sea, of from the sea to a ship, or from a ship to the sea, or from one ship to another is not liable. If ships are tied to one another one carries from one to the other; if they are not tied to one another, even though they be surrounded, one does not carry from one to the other.

Halakhah

5. Abba bar Rav Ḥuna said, it they are tied together with bast. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, only if they made an eruv. Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Immi, both in the name of Rabbi Eleazar. One said, if the distance between them is less than four; but the other said, even if the distance between them is four. We did not know who said what. Since Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, even if they are not ten hand-breadths high, it is he who said, if the distance between them is less than four hand-breadths.

They wanted to say, he who said, if the distance between them is less than four hand-breadths, even if they are not ten hand-breadths high. He who said, if they are ten hand-breadths high, even if the distance between them is four. Rabbi Ḥananiah the son of Rabbi Hillel said, only if the airspace of karmelit be within ten hand-breadths.

“From a ship in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea into it. Rabbi Judah says, if its draft was more than ten hand-breadths but it does not extend higher than ten hand-breadths above the water one moves from it to the sea but not from the sea into it.” Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Joḥanan asked, why from it to the sea? Because it is not ten high. If it is so, even from the sea into it! Why from the sea into it is forbidden? Because it is ten deep. If it is so, even from it to the sea! Rabbi Abun said, why is it permitted from it to the sea? Because of danger.

From a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one transports neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it. If it was less than this it is permitted. What is the difference between a rock and a ship? A ship rises and falls; a rock stays in its place. But is it not karmelit? Is it permitted to move on karmelit only four cubits? Rabbi Ila said, it refers to the beginning: “from a rock in the sea higher than ten hand-breadths one moves neither from it to the sea nor from the sea onto it.” If it was higher it becomes like a fence made for agriculture where inside one is permitted to transport only four cubits. If it was lower one transports from it to the sea and from the sea onto it, and one transports up to two bet se’ah. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked, two adjacent karmeliot, may one transport from one to the other? Rabbi Ḥananiah the son of Rabbi Hillel said, since the sea surrounds it from all sides it is considered as a single karmelit.

Rav Hamnuna said, on a board outside the ship which is not four wide one may sit and provide for his needs on the Sabbath. Rabbi Mana said, if he had said an open box it would have been correct. Rabbi Abun said, one who wants to provide for a boat makes outside of three hand-breadths a plank which is not four hand-breadths wide and one considers it as if partitions rose. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rav Hamnuna: Because any three hand-breadths which are close to a partition are as if of the partition. Rabbi Isaac ben Rabbi Eleazar commanded Rabbi Hoshaiah ben Rabbi Shammai, who was a mariner, to make for himself a deficient container.

Mishnah

6 One who throws and remembers before it leaves his hand, if another person caught it, or a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable. If one threw with the intention of causing an injury whether on a human or an animal and he remembered before it caused an injury, he is not liable. This is the principle: All who are liable for a purification sacrifice are liable only if beginning and end were in error. If the beginning was unintentional but the end criminal or the beginning criminal and the end unintentional they are not liable unless beginning and end be unintentional.

Halakhah

This is how the Mishnah reads: “he acted intentionally.” This is difficult. If somebody shot an arrow intending to kill a person, he was warned, and changed his intention; is that anything? Finally you have to say that it was intentional.

Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, unintentionally a prohibition, intentionally a prohibition. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, unintentionally extirpation, intentionally extirpation. Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, a support of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: “He blasphemes the Eternal and will be extirpated.”Numbers 15:30 Think of it; even if he was intentional in a matter of extirpation and he was warned and is being flogged, may he bring a sacrifice? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If he was unintentional about fat but intentional about the purification sacrifice one warns him and he is flogged.

It was stated: One experiments neither with fat nor with incest or adultery. One who experiments on the Sabbath is not liable, with fat or with incest or adultery is liable. How is this? If he said, “am going to harvest the volume half of a dried fig” and then he harvested the volume of a dried fig, he is not liable. “I am going to eat half the volume of an olive” and ate the volume of an olive; he is liable. “I am going to arouse myself by her” and then touched her; he is liable.

Mishnah

1 How much would a builder build to become liable? One who builds anything. One who chisels stone, and one who hits with a hammer or a hatchet, or who drills anything is liable. This is the principle: Anybody who performs work on the Sabbath and whose work has permanence is liable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also one who hits with the back of his hammer on the anvil during work is liable because he improves the work.

Halakhah

“How much would a builder build to become liable,” etc. What building was at the Sanctuary? They were putting the planks on top of the bases. But was this not temporary? Rabbi Yose says, because they were camping and traveling by the Word, it was as though permanent. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that He would bring them into the Land, it is as if it were permanent. This implies, even from the side. This implies even if it was put on top of something else. Does it imply that building on implements is building? The bases are like soil.

It was stated: “If one brings the stone and another one the mortar, he who brings the mortar is liable. Rabbi Yose says, both are liable.” Rabbi Yose is of the opinion that stone without mortar is building. Everybody agrees that if one put up mortar first and someone then brought stone he is liable. “The builder who set the stone on top of the row is liable.” For whom is this needed? For the rabbis. One who put up planks or one who put up adobe walls is liable because of building.

He who hollows out cliffs, cavities, pillars, millstones, or splits mosaic stones, splits blocks, is liable because of chiseling. One who puts together a Galilean bed is liable because of building. Rabbi Zeʿura said, he only is like one who takes a brick and puts it on bricks on the Sabbath. Rav Hamnuna instructed the Head of the Captivity to disassemble a composite table on the Sabbath. He said, Rav Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya was with him. Rav Judah heard it and said, the one who instructed him did not study or serve. Rabbi Shammai said, the one who instructed him instructed following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, as it was stated: Planking of a ship, or of a crib, and the posts of a bed, and the leg of a table, and the handle on the top of a knife one should not return but if one returned he is not liable. But if one pushed in he is liable. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, if they were loose he removes and returns. It was stated: “Stuck together they are a connection for impurity and sprinkling; nailed together they are a connection for impurity but not for sprinkling. Those which may be taken apart and put together again are connections neither for impurity nor for sprinkling.” And here, you are saying so? There normally they are fixed; if not fixed there is no connection. But here sticking together is the end of its manufacture.

It was stated: “Rabbi Simai said, one who assembles a curved horn is liable, with a straight horn he is not liable. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon said, for the arms of a candelabra he is liable; for a hunter’s whitewasher’s rod he is not liable.” Why is he liable for the arms of a candelabra? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan and Rav Ḥuna both say, because of building. Why is he not liable for a hunter’s rod? Because it is from top to bottom. They objected, does not one who digs in the dunes work from top to bottom, and you are saying that he is liable? Rabbi Samuel bar Yudan said, here temporarily, there permanent.

Samuel said, anybody who tightly closes the shutters is liable because of building. This is difficult. Something which if it was done on the Sabbath makes him liable for a purification sacrifice the House of Hillel permit to restore? Rabbi Ḥinena in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the start. For if you say that he cannot put them back he will not open. Don’t let him open! Then he detracts from the enjoyment of the holiday. Rabbi Aḥa said, he may put them back on condition that he not restore completely. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, if there is no door there. But if there is a door he uses the door.

The Mishnah is Rabbi Simeon’s, as it was stated: “One who scratches, who drills, who chops anything is liable; Rabbi Simeon says, one who scratches only if he scratches completely, one who drills only if he drills completely, one who chops only if he chopped completely, one who tans hides only if he tanned completely.” And Rabbi Jacob bar Ada said, this only follows Rabbi Simeon since Rabbi Simeon did not treat partial work as whole work, but the rabbis do treat partial work as whole work.

And it is difficult about Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. If one took tools to harvest but did not harvest, is that perhaps anything? Rabbi Ada said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel parallels Rabbi Judah, as it was stated: “One who hits or smooths a piece of weaving is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

Mishnah

2 He who plows any amount, who weeds, who prunes, or who thins anything is liable. One who collects wood, if to improve in any amount, or if as firewood to cook an easily cooked egg. One who collects grasses, if to improve in any amount, if for animals to fill a kid goat’s mouth.

Halakhah

2. What kind of plowing was in the Tabernacle? They plowed to plant dyestuff. How much does one have to plow to become liable? Rabbi Mattaniah said, enough to plant a leek. Rabbi Aḥa bar Rav said, enough to plant a wheat sprout.

There, we have stated: “Two green melon seeds make liable, two squash seeds.” It was stated, two Median wheat kernels. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Since wheat was so much appreciated they treated it like garden vegetables that are not eaten.

Why do I need “to improve in any amount,” why do I need “to fill a kid goat’s mouth”?

Mishnah

3 One who writes two letters is liable, whether with his right hand, or with his left hand, whether of one denomination or of two denominations, whether two signs of any language. Rabbi Yose said, two letters create liability only as signs since they were making signs on the planks to know which belongs to which. Rabbi Judah said, we find a short name from a long name, Sem from Simeon, Noah fron Naḥor, Dan from Daniel, Gad from Gadiel.

Halakhah

3. Who taught “signs”? Rabbi Yose! What is meant by “of any language”? Even aleph and alpha. Should one not be concerned that maybe one will put them upside down or bottom up? They were made similar to reed pens. Should one not be concerned that maybe one will put them inside out or outside in? The rings prove it. Should one not be concerned that maybe one would exchange? Rabbi Aḥa said, it was written slanted. Why could they not be switched? Rabbi Immi said, “You shall erect the Tabernacle according to its ruling.”Exodus 26:30 Does there exist a ruling for wood? But the log which merited to be put in the North should be put in the North, in the South should be put in the South.

Those of Rabbi Hoshaiah and those of Bar Pazi went and greeted the Patriarch every day. Those of Rabbi Hoshaiah went in first and left first. Those of Bar Pazi went and became related by marriage to the patriarchate. They came and wanted to enter first. They went and asked Rabbi Immi who said to them: “You shall erect the Tabernacle according to its ruling.” Does there exist a ruling for wood? But the log which merited to be put in the North should be put in the North, in the South should be put in the South.

Two families were in Sepphoris, one of city councillors and one rural, who were greeting the Patriarch every day. The councillors went in first and left first. The rural ones went and acquired knowledge in Torah. They came and wanted to have precedence. It was asked Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish asked it from Rabbi Joḥanan. Rabbi Joḥanan went up and preached in Rabbi Benaiah’s house of study: “But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.” They wanted to say, to be redeemed, for clothing, and for livelihood, but not for the Academy. Rabbi Abbin said, even for the Academy. What is the reason? “It is more precious than pearls,” even than he who enters into the Most Holy of the Sanctuary.

It was stated, “and Gad from Gadiel.” They objected to Rabbi Judah, are not these straight and those bent? It was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word he is liable, for example, ḥaḥ, rar, gag, tet, sas. But the rabbis, two letters anywhere. You are finding to say that there is leniency and stringency for Rabbi Judah, leniency and stringency for the rabbis. A leniency for Rabbi Judah: If he wrote two identical letters and they form a word, in the opinion of Rabbi Judah he is liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is not liable. Two letters anywhere even though they do not define a word, in the opinion of Rabbi Judah he is not liable, in the opinion of the rabbis he is liable. The opinion of Rabbi Judah seems inverted, as it was stated: “I might think only if he wrote the entire word, only if he wove the entire cloth, only if he made the entire sieve, the verse says, “of one.”Leviticus 4:2 If of one, I might think even if he wrote one letter, even if he wove one thread, even if he made one loop on a fine or coarse sieve. The verse says, “he did one.”Leviticus 4:22 How is this? Only if he made a work similar to one which is permanent.” And here he says, “one who hits or smooths a weave is liable because he equalizes with his hand.” And here because he equalizes with his hand.

Mishnah

4 One who writes two letters in one oblivion is liable. He is liable if he wrote in ink, by chemicals, in vermilion, with gum, with vitriol of copper, with anything which leaves a record, on two walls of a house or two leaves of a wooden book if they can be read together. One who writes on his body is liable. If he scratches on his flesh, Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable but Rabbi Joshua declares him not liable.

Halakhah

4. If one wrote with ink on vegetable leaves, with drinks or fruit juice on a board, he is not liable unless he wrote with permanent material on permanent material. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. But did we not state, “if they cannot be read together, he is not liable”? Rabbi Abba bar Mamal said, besararah.

If the witnesses do not know how to sign. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, one sketches for them in ink and they sign with vermilion, or with vermilion and they sign in ink. Rabbi Joḥanan told him, because we are occupied with the rules of the Sabbath, should we permit a married woman? But he brings a blank sheet of paper and cuts it before them. Would it not be the first person’s handwriting? One has to widen the cuts. Rabbi Mana asked, why do we not say that one sketches for them with water? If he would come and protest, his protest would be invalid. “If somebody tears into skin in the form of writing he is liable, if somebody sketches on skin in the form of writing it he is not liable.” “Rabbi Eliezer told them, did not Ben Saṭda only in this way bring magic formulas from Egypt? They said to him, because of one insane person should we condemn several sane ones?”

“He shall write,”Deuteronomy 24:1 not engrave. “And he shall write,” not dropping points. “He shall write,” not pouring. “He shall write,” not engrave; some Tannaim state, he even may engrave. Rab Ḥisda said, he who says not to engrave, if the writing stands out as on a denar. He who says even to engrave, as on a writing tablet. “And he shall write,” not dropping points; Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Shalom and Rabbi Mattaniah: One said, if he did not connect the points; the other said, even if he connected the points. “And he shall write,” not pouring. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, those Orientals are very sophisticated. If one of them wants to write a secret letter to another, he writes with juice of gall-nuts. The recipient pours ink without gall over it, which is absorbed at the place of writing. If one did that on the Sabbath, what? Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish both said, only if he wrote ink on ink and vermilion on vermilion. But if he wrote ink on vermilion or vermilion on ink, he is liable. Rabbi Isaac bar Mesharshia in the name of the rabbis there: He is liable twice, for erasing and for writing.

Mishnah

5 If he wrote with fluid of drinks, with fruit juice, with road dust, with scribe’s dust, or with anything which is not permanent, he is not liable. With the back of his hand, with his foot, with his mouth, with his elbow; if he wrote one letter adjacent to existing writing, wrote over existing writing, intended to write ḥet and wrote zayin zayin, one on the ground and one on a beam, on two walls of a house or two leaves of a wooden tablet if they cannot be read together, he is not liable. If he wrote one letter as abbreviation, Rabbi Joshua ben Bathyra declares liable but the Sages declare not liable.

Halakhah

5. “If he had to write the Name but intended to write Judah but forgot to write dalet. Then the Name is at its proper place. He erases it and fixes it in holiness. Rabbi Judah says, he moves the pen over it and fixes it. They said to him, but this is not preferable.” Rabbi Judah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not writing. But here, he says, it is writing. They objected to him according to his opinion. According to your opinion, since you say that it is writing, but this is not preferable. Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rabbi Abbahu did not say so, but that Rabbi Judah’s argument seems inverted. There he says, it is not preferable, therefore the writing is writing; but here he says, writing on top of writing is not writing. What is writing on top of writing? One higher than the other.

What is Rabbi Joshua ben Bathyra’s reason? From one letter one may infer several letters.

Mishnah

6 One who wrote two letters in two periods of oblivion, one in the morning and one in the evening, Rabban Gamliel declares liable but the Sages declare not liable.

Halakhah

6. It is difficult for Rabban Gamliel. If one harvested the volume of a dried fig in the morning and the volume of a dried fig in the evening in one oblivion, would he not be liable? Since oblivions do not divide, so they should not combine! Rabbi Mana said it without attribution, Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rabban Gamliel there is that there is no awareness for half a work, and similarly, there is no intent for half a work. If one ate half the volume of an olive intentionally and half the volume of an olive in error, would this combine?

Mishnah

1 Rabbi Eliezer says, he who weaves three threads to start or one on the weave is liable. But the Sages say, whether at the beginning or at the end its measure is two threads.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Eliezer says, he who weaves,” etc. Rabbi Ulla said, Rabbi Eliezer’s reason is that by the third his work becomes permanent. Does Rabbi Eliezer hold with Rabbi Judah? As we have stated there: “Rabbi Judah says, only if there are three pin-stitches. A sack and a chest bring together for kilaim.” Rabbi Simon said, Rabbi Eliezer’s reason is there that by the third his work becomes permanent, but here it undoes itself. You conclude that according to Rabbi Eliezer, sometimes three to start out with, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday, sometimes two additional to one woven yesterday.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked, what is meant by “one on the weave”? One on top of two, one on top of three. The rabbis here are saying, one on top of two. If there was one large toga, at the start until he weave two threads of it, and at the end the most minute amount. “One who weaves two threads on top of the back, on top of the seam, in the most minute amount is liable. To what may this be compared? To a small belt where he is liable if he wove two threads in the width of three spaces.” And with woolen warp it is as at the start, and this cloth even at the end it is weave, and this veil even at the end it is weave.

Everybody agrees that if he writes a word only at the moment when he finishes. “One who wrote one letter to complete a word or one letter to complete a scroll is liable.” One who wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rabbi Joshua declares him not liable. Why? Either because of completion of the work or because it is not appropriate to be joined to it. Come and see, is he not free from liability if he wove one thread on a weekday and one thread on the Sabbath, is it not appropriate to be joined to it? But because of completion of the work, as Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: If he wrote one letter in Tiberias and one letter in Sepphoris he is liable. For if it were not so following Rabbi Eliezer. If he wrote one letter on this Sabbath and one letter on the next Sabbath, Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rabbi Joshua declares him not liable. Come and see, if he wrote one letter on a weekday and one letter on the Sabbath, Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice; not so much more if one letter on this Sabbath and one on the next! Because of the Sages who declare not liable.

Mishnah

2 He who makes two mashes, attaching them to the cross-pieces or to the thrums, of for a fine or coarse sieve, or for a basket, is liable. One who sews two stitches or who tears in order to sew two stitches.

Halakhah

2. “The cross pieces,” the cross pieces. “The thrums,” kairoma. Rabbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: He who straightens out the sides on the Sabbath is liable because of sewing. He should have said, because of sewing and tying knots.

Mishnah

3 He who tears in his rage or about a deceased person, any who spoil are not liable. The measure for one who spoils in order to repair is as for repairing.

Halakhah

3. They asked Rabbi Abba: Just as you are saying there, “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one,” so one should say also here, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it must follow Rabbi Simeon, since Rabbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself, but here you caused it to him. Rabbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rabbi Simeon?

The colleagues asked Rabbi Yose, did not Rabbi Joḥanan say in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Joṣadaq, on Passover one cannot fulfill one’s obligation with a robbed mazzah? He told them, there in itself it is sinful, but here he committed a sin. Would we say, if one brought a mazzah from a private to the public domain that he could not fulfill his obligation on Passover?

It was stated: It is forbidden to recite a benediction over a robbed mazzah. Rabbi Hoshaiah said, because of “he who recites the blessing over a piece of bread blasphemes.”Psalms 10:3 Rabbi Jonah said, that is, originally. But in the end, does he not incur a monetary obligation? Rabbi Jonah said, no sin can be a good deed. Rabbi Yose said, no good deed can be a sin. Rabbi Ila said, “these are the commandments.”Leviticus 27:34 If you did them the way they were commanded they are a good deeds; otherwise they are not good deeds.

Mishnah

4 The measure of one who bleaches, or who beats flax, who dyes, or who spins, is double the width of a span. The measure for him who weaves two threads is the length of a span.

Halakhah

4. There, we have stated: “One who brings out wood to cook an easily cooked egg,” and here you are saying so? There one who brings out in order to dye, but here about him who dyes.

Mishnah

5 Rabbi Judah says, one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable, but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium. Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel says, not all vivaria are equal. The principle: In every case where it still needs catching, he is not liable, if it does not need catching he is liable.

Halakhah

5. Rabbi Ḥinena said, our Mishnah dos not follow Rabbi Judah, as we have stated: “one who catches a bird for a cage or a deer for a house is liable;” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable. The argument of Rabbi Judah is inverted since we have stated there: “one does not catch fish from vivaria, one does not feed them,” therefore for a garden or a vivarium he is not liable? The argument of the rabbis is inverted, as we have stated: “but the Sages say, a bird for a cage and a deer for a garden, or a courtyard, or a vivarium,” and we have stated there, “but one catches wild animals and fowl from vivaria and feeds them,” therefore not for a garden or a vivarium? One for a covered courtyard, the other for a courtyard which is not covered. But did we not state “a garden”? Can you say a covered garden? But here a large one, there a small one. Rabbi Ulla said, they asked Rabbi Aḥa, how should one state? In any case where catching is still missing one is liable, but if catching is not missing one is not liable? He answered them, do we not deal with the case that he corrals them into it? But “in any case where catching is still missing it is forbidden, but if catching is not missing it is permitted.” Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Berekhiah’s brother, said: any which needs nets needs catching, what does not need nets does not need catching.

“One may slaughter from containers, one may not slaughter from fishermen’s nets or from traps.” Rabbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rabbi Immi: a net of warp. Samuel said, one may catch with a barrel. Rav said, the sluice of a water canal is permitted. Rabbi Yudan said, those between the plates.

Mishnah

6 If a deer enters a house, he who locked the house while it was there is liable. If two together locked, they are not liable. If one alone could not have locked it and two did it, they are liable; but Rabbi Simeon holds them not liable.

Halakhah

6. “When she was doing it.”Leviticus 4:27 The individual who did it is liable; two or three who were doing it are not liable. Rav Ḥuna said, if one was healthy and one weak. If the sick person locked completely but the healthy one incompletely, the sick one is liable but the healthy one is not liable. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If a deer was running normally and he intended to lock the door for himself and he locked for himself and the deer, it is permitted. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he saw a child gurgling in a river and he intended to bring him up together with a school of fish, it is permitted. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: If he was digging in a pile and was intending to bring him up together with a hoard of gold coins, it is permitted.

Mishnah

7 If one sat in the door opening but did not fill it and a second person came and filled it, the second is liable. If the first one sat in the door and filled it when the second came and sat next to him, even though the first one got up and left, the first is liable and the second not liable. To what can this be compared? To one who locks his house in order to watch it and it turns out that a deer is kept inside.

Halakhah

7. Rabbi Shammai asked, may one feed them? It comes following what we have stated there: “one does not provide water to bees and to pigeons in a dovecot,” for one cannot provide for something which is not prepared. And here it is the same.

Rabbi Shammai asked, may one put a vessel over it? It comes following what Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. For an egg which was laid on the Sabbath one leans it against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one even may cover it with a vessel. Rabbi Shammai asked, may one tie it with a rope? It comes following what Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, it is permitted to use the sides of an animal on the Sabbath. There is no difference between sides of an animal and sides of a tree. In any case where one is permitted to use the sides of an animal one is permitted to tie it; in any case where one is prohibited to use the sides of an animal one is prohibited to tie it.

Mishnah

1 The eight kinds of vermin mentioned in the Torah: one who catches or injures them is liable. Other abominations and vermin: one who injures them is not liable; if he catches them for some need he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Wild animals and fowl in his possession: if he catches them he is not liable but if he injures them he is liable.

Halakhah

“The eight kinds of vermin,” etc. Rabbi Zeriqan in the name of Rabbi Immi: Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish disagreed. One said, this is everybody’s opinion; the other said, it is in dispute. We do not know who said what. Rabbi Zeira said, let us explain the rabbis’ words from their own words, since we have stated there: “these are the ones whose skins are like their flesh, human skin and domesticated pigskin. Rabbi Yose says, also wild pigskin.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, they taught this only regarding prohibition and impurity. But with regard to flogging it is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said, Rabbi taught a complete Mishnah, whether for prohibition, or for flogging, or for impurity. A baraita supports one, and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rabbi Joḥanan: “The eight kinds of vermin have hides. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that the eight kinds of vermin have hides.” A baraita supports Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish. He who injures vermin, for those who have hides he is liable, for those who have no hides he is not liable. Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, therefore I am saying that all kinds of vermin have hides. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav: It is hide and one may not flog for it because of carcass meat. This follows what Rabbi Joḥanan said, “he who caught crickets, flies, ḥagazin, mosquitoes is liable, but Rabbi Judah declares not liable, for so did Rabbi Judah say, one is liable only for something which usually is hunted. One who catches locusts in dew is not liable, in dry time is liable. Eleazar ben Aḥbai says, even in heat one is not liable if it forms clusters. One who catches a lame, blind, sick, young deer is not liable, for a sleeping one he is liable,” for it closes one and opens one.

Rabbi Yannai said, one is permitted to kill a wasp on the Sabbath. And it was stated thus: “Five are killed on the Sabbath: an Egyptian fly, and a wasp in Niniveh, and a scorpion in Adiabene, and a snake in the Land of Israel, and a rabid dog anywhere. It happened that a snake fell on the Sabbath, when a Nabatean got up and killed it. Rabbi said, it met its match.” But are they not of the ones which are killed on the Sabbath? Explain it as a case where they come to do damage. It was stated, Rabbi Jacob says, he who sees a snake or a scorpion within four cubits was destined to die by them, only that the mercy of the Omnipresent is abundant. Rabban Simeon said, when has this been said? If he did not kill them. But if he killed them they appeared to him so he could kill them. In any case they appeared to him only by merit.

It is written, “hear this all nations, listen all who dwell like moles.”Psalms 49:1 Rabbi Aha said, Rabbi Abbahu and the rabbis. One said, why does he compare all creatures to a mole? Only because everything that exists on dry land exists in the sea, but there are many species in the sea which are not on land, and there is no mole in the sea. But the other said, why does he compare all creatures to a mole? Like this mole which drags and deposits and does not know for whom it deposits, so are the creatures, they always drag and collect and do not know for whom they collect; “he piles up and does not know for whom he assembled it.”Psalms 39:6

“Wild animals and fowl in his possession: if he catches them he is not liable but if he injures them he is liable.” They said this only if it is under the control of a human. Therefore if it is not under the control of a human he is liable. Rabbi Yose said, this means that one who on the Sabbath catches an escaped bull is liable. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rav Avidan: One is permitted to write a mezuzah on bird’s skin.

Mishnah

2 One makes no brine on the Sabbath but he may make salt water, dips his bread in it, and adds it to a dish. Rabbi Yose said, is that not brine, whether strong or mild? But the following is permitted salt water: if he starts by adding oil to water or salt.

Halakhah

2. “One makes no brine on the Sabbath.” What is the difference between brine and salt water? Brine needs a craftsman, salt water needs no craftsman. Rav Huna said, anything to which one adds salt and it dissolves is salt water, if it does not dissolve it is brine. Rabbi Abbahu said, anything where one puts in an egg and it sinks is saltwater, if it does not sink it is brine.

One may make honeywine on the Sabbath. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: wine, honey, and pepper. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to mix but forbidden to grind. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Anything for mixing is permitted, for grinding is forbidden. But do we not deal here with mixing? Rabbi Judah ben Titus, Rabbi Judah ben Pazi, Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: there is a difference here since it is completion of production. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: one is permitted to break but forbidden to assemble. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: ground garlic. If it needed grinding it is forbidden, but if to mix into fat it is permitted. There, we have stated: “About garlic, unripe grapes, and grain kernels which he squashed when it was still daylight, Rabbi Ishmael used to say, he should finish after nightfall, Rabbi Akiva said, he may not finish.” Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: they disagreed only about profane food. “The priests for heave used to follow Rabbi Ishmael.”

Mishnah

3 One may not eat Greek hyssop on the Sabbath because it is not food of healthy people, but one may eat true maiden hair and drink shepherd’s flute. Any food may a person eat as medicine and any drink may he drink except piercing water and a cup of roots because these are for hepatitis. But one may drink piercing water for his thirst and rub oil of roots not for healing.

Halakhah

3. A man asked Rabbi Simeon bar Karsana: May one drink claret on the Sabbath? He said to him, if for enjoyment it is permitted, if as medicine it is forbidden. But is that not inside the lips? Explain it as a case where there is danger.

“But one may eat true maiden hair” polytrichon. “And drink shepherd’s flute,” as the simple meaning of the word.

Rabbi Abba asked Rabbi Jeremiah, how should we state, deqārin, deqālin? He said, deqārin, because it pierces the gall bladder. Rabbi Jonah said, it is more reasonable deqālin, because it gushes forth between two palm trees.

Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: One who whispers puts oil on his head and whispers, on condition that he use neither hand nor vessel. Rabbi Jacob bar Idi, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai, he may use both hand or vessel. What is the difference between them? Disgust. For him who says, he may use either hand or vessel, it is disgusting. For him who says, he puts oil on his head, it is not disgusting. Rabbi Jonah said, Second Tithe is the difference between them. For him who says, he may use either hand or vessel, Second Tithe is forbidden. For him who says, he puts oil on his head and whispers, Second Tithe is permitted. Rabbi Yose said, is everything permitted on the Sabbath permitted with Second Tithe and everything forbidden on the Sabbath forbidden with Second Tithe? But was it not stated: “A woman may douse herself and her son with wine because of sweat;” “this is forbidden for heave.” There is no difference between heave and Second Tithe. What about it? On condition that he not proceed on the Sabbath the way he proceeds on a weekday.

One recites spells for the eye, and for intestines, and for snakes, and for scorpions, and one puts things on the eye on the Sabbath. It happened that Rabbi Akiva had an eye attack and they put vessels over his eye on the Sabbath.

Rav and the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya both say, ninety-nine die because of the eye and one by the hand of Heaven. Rabbi Ḥanina and Samuel both say, ninety-nine die because of cold and one by the hand of Heaven. Rav follows his opinion and Rabbi Ḥanina follows his opinion. Since Rav was living there, where the evil eye is prevalent, he did say that ninety-nine die because of the eye and one by the hand of Heaven. Since Rabbi Ḥanina was living in Sepphoris, where it is cold, he did say that ninety-nine die because of cold and one by the hand of Heaven. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Ninety-nine die because of hot wind and one by the hand of Heaven. But the rabbis say, ninety-nine die because of criminal negligence and one by the hand of Heaven.

Rabbi Onias, Jacob from Afartaim in the name of Rabbi: “The Eternal will remove from you all sickness,”Deuteronomy 7:15 that is fever. Rabbi Ḥuna who stated it in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob, “the Eternal will remove from you all sickness,” that is worry, as Rabbi Eleazar said, “he will put an iron yoke on your neck,”Deuteronomy 28:48 this is worry. Rabbi Abun said, “the Eternal will remove from you all sickness,” that is the evil impulse whose start is sweet but whose end is bitter. Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, Rabbi Menaḥema in the name of Rav: “The Eternal will remove from you all sickness,” that is the gall bladder, as Rabbi Eleazar said, ninety-nine die because of gall and one by the hand of Heaven.

One may bathe in the ocean and in the waters of Tiberias even though one intends to do this for medical purposes, but not in water used for soaking flax or in the Dead Sea. When? If he intended this for medical purposes; therefore to lift himself from impurity to purity it is permitted. Rabbi Samuel, Rabbi Berekhiah’s brother said, on condition that he not tarry.

It was stated: One rubs olentia on a sick person on the Sabbath; but only if it was mixed with oil and wine before Sabbath eve. But if he did not mix it before Sabbath eve it is forbidden. It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said: Rabbi Meir did allow to mix wine and oil and to rub it onto a sick person on Sabbath. When he fell sick, we wanted to prepare the same for him but he did not let us do it. We said to him: Our teacher, are you going to invalidate your words when your life is in danger? He said to them: even though I did say so, I never intended to transgress the words of my colleagues.

Mishnah

4 One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar, but he may dip as usual and if he is healed, he is healed. One whose hips are aching may not rub in oil and vinegar, but he may rub in oil, except for rose oil. Princes may rub rose oil on their injuries because they usually do this also on a weekday. Rabbi Simeon says, all of Israel are princes.

Halakhah

4. It is written, “like vinegar for the teeth or like smoke for the eyes,”Proverbs 10:26 and you are saying so? Rabbi Simeon bar Abba said, the Mishnah is about fruit vinegar. Rabbi Eleazar bar Yose said, even if you are saying as our Mishnah, it is good for a bad situation and bad for a good one.

It was stated: One should not sip vinegar and spit it out, but he may sip vinegar and swallow. The Mishnah says that it is forbidden to sip and to swallow, as we have stated, “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar.” What about it? Either following Rabbi or following everyone who sips vinegar of heave after dipping.

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He who chews wheat grain of kilaim in a vineyard is whipped; he who chews wheat grain of heave is whipped. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, he who sips vinegar of heave is whipped; he who sips vinegar of heave pays the principal but he does not pay the fifth; he who chews wheat grain of heave pays the principal but he does not pay the fifth. Rabbi says, I am saying that he pays principal and fifth. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Immi: The rabbis agree with Rabbi about one who sips heave vinegar from his dipping that he pays principal and fifth since vinegar refreshes.

The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside of the lips one heals on the Sabbath. Rabbi Zeʿira objected, did we not state: “One whose teeth are aching may not sip vinegar,”? Is this not inside from the lips? Rabbi Zeʿira did not say so, but Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Zavda: Anything inside a body cavity one heals on the Sabbath. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi: One treats the bone of the skull on the Sabbath. Rabbi Ḥiyya the Mede, Rabbi Jona, Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Abba bar Zuṭra, Rabbi Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi: One treats glands of the throat on the Sabbath. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One treats an infected eye on the Sabbath. There, they say in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Tops of hands and feet are a danger. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Red color is dangerous. Rabbi Abin said, one removes the sting of a scorpion on the Sabbath. Rav said, wine for exterior treatment of the eye is permitted, inside the eye it is forbidden. Samuel said, tasteless spittle is forbidden for the eye on the Sabbath From this you infer for lichen. The rabbis of Caesarea said, ranula is dangerous. Rabbi Ḥizqiah from Acco in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: spider sickness is dangerous. Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: gangrene is dangerous. Rabbi Jeremiah said, one can put sour dough on it on Passover. A boil is permitted. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah says this: “A small needle to remove a thorn.” Otherwise, what is the difference between a thorn and a boil? Darkening of the eye, they asked Rabbi Jeremiah. He told them, is not Rabbi Abba available for you? They asked Rabbi Abba who permitted. He told them, also I am permitting it.

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan. Scurvy is dangerous. Rabbi Joḥanan had it; he was treated by the daughter of Domitianus of Tiberias. Friday evening he went up to her and asked her, will I need anything tomorrow? She said no, but if you need anything take date pits split and heated, some say of Nicolaus dates, skin of barley grain, and dry excrement of a baby, grind it and apply it; do not tell this to anybody. The next day he went up and preached it in public. She heard it and strangled herself; but some say that she converted. You understand from this three things. You understand that scurvy is dangerous. You understand that anything inside of the lips one heals. You understand what Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levy was suffering from colic; Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Jonathan instructed him to grind taḥlusin, put it in old wine and drink it to avoid becoming endangered.

His grandson suffered from choking; there came one, whispered something in the name of Jesus ben Pantera and he could breathe. When he left, he asked him, what did you say over him? He answered, such and such words. He said, it would have been better for him had he died and not heard these words. It happened to him, “like an erroneous order from a ruler.”

Rabbi Jacob bar Idi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One heals with anything except pagan worship, uncovering nakednesses, and spilling blood. Rabbi Phinehas asked: So far if he said, bring me leaves from pagan worship, and he brought him. If he said to him bring me leaves unspecified and he brought him from pagan worship? Let us hear from the following: Rabbi Jonah had a fever attack. They brought him from the penis of Dori and he drank. They brought to Rabbi Aḥa and he did not drink. Rabbi Mana said, if my father Rabbi Jonah had known from where it was, he would not have drunk.

Rabbi Huna said, a baraita implies that one does not heal through uncovering nakedness, as it was stated: The Sabbath was permitted in exceptional cases; the betrothed maiden was never permitted in exceptional cases. Was not the Sabbath permitted in exceptional cases for healing? The betrothed maiden was never permitted, not even for healing. Not only if one said to another, bring me a married woman, but even to hear her voice, as the following: In the days of Rabbi Eleazar a man loved a woman and fell dangerously ill. They came and asked him, should she parade before him that he may live? He said, he should die but not this. May he hear her voice and live? He said, he should die but not this. How was it? Rabbi Jacob bar Idi and Rabbi Isaac bar Naḥman, one said, she was a married woman, but one said, she was single. One who said that she was a married woman we understand. But the one who said that she was single? Did not Bar Koḥa the carpenter love a woman in the days of Rabbi Eleazar and he permitted him? One case about a married woman and the other about a single one. Even you may say, here and here about a single one; explain it that he became infatuated with her when she still was married. Some want to say, she was a woman of substance and did not want to marry. Everything which he did was forbidden; therefore he did permit nothing to him.

Rabbi Ḥanina said, a baraita implies that one does not heal through spilling blood, as we have stated there: “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life before another life.” Not only if one would say, kill this person, but even if he told him, injure that person. It was stated, a Gentile against a Jew, is prohibited; a Jew against a Gentile is permitted. Rav Ḥisda asked, may one save the life of an adult with the life of a minor? Rabbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state, “If most of his body was outside one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life before another life”? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, there it is different for it is not known who is endangering whom.

It happened that Eleazar ben Dama was bitten by a snake and Jacob from Kefar-Sama came to heal him in the name of Jesus ben Pandera, but Rabbi Ishmael prevented him. He told him, I will bring a proof that he can heal me. He could not bring proof before he died. Rabbi Ishmael said to him, you are blessed, ben Dama, that you left this world in peace and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, as it is written, “he who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake.”Ecclesiastes 10:8 But did not a snake bite him? But that it will not bite him in the Future World. What could he have said? “Which a person should do and live by them.”Leviticus 18:5

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Simeon, since otherwise, could anybody give rose oil to a poor person if he could not anoint himself?

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yose, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rabbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abba bar Zavda, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

Mishnah

1 The following are the knots for which one is liable: a camel driver’s knot and a mariner’s knot. Just as one is liable for knotting them so he is liable for untying them. Rabbi Meir says, one is never liable for a knot which one can untie with one hand.

Halakhah

“The following are the knots,” etc. What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes. But was this not temporary? Rabbi Yose says, because they were traveling and camping by the Word, was it not permanent? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi 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 temporary. Rabbi Phinehas said, they learned it from the curtain needle-workers. 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 one. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads. And where was this said? As Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the curtains. What is the reason? “The length of one curtain,” that it should be an entity. If a thread broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection.

Rabbi Hoshaiah stated, a basket of palm leaves for dates or a plate of palm leaves one may tear and open, only one may not tie.

Mishnah

2 But there are knots for which one is not liable as one is for a camel driver’s knot and a mariner’s knot. A woman may knot the openings of her garment, and the threads of the hair net, of the belt, and laces of shoe and sandal, wine and oil skins, and of a meat pot. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, one may tie in front of an animal that it should not leave; one may tie a pail to a belt but not to a rope, but Rabbi Judah permits it. Rabbi Judah stated a principle: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent.

Halakhah

2. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, if one opens the hem which is connected to the garment. Rabbi Yose said, if one opens a split garment which is made like two sheets. If shoe or sandal laces were dislocated, one removes and returns them, only one may not knot them. If its nose was dislocated, there are Tannaim who state, it is permitted to put it back, and there are Tannaim who state, it is forbidden to put it back. They wanted to say, he who says that it is permitted, if there is one hole; he who says that it is forbidden, if there are two holes. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, in both cases it is following him who says that there are two holes. What about it? He who says that it is permitted, if they are loose; he who says that it is forbidden, if they are squeezed.

Do they disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob? Since it was stated: “The Sages agree with Rabbi Meir about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.” This implies that they do not disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Rabbi Abba said, the Mishnah is about a rope hanging down, a rope tied hanging down.

“To a belt but not to a rope, but Rabbi Judah permits it.” Therefore the rabbis do not? But because the earlier statement was in the name of Rabbi Judah, so also this is in the name of Rabbi Judah: “Rabbi Judah stated a principle: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent.” Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: This is how the Mishnah reads: One is never liable for a knot which is not permanent and which is temporary.

Mishnah

3 One may fold garments even four or five times and make the beds from Friday Night to the Sabbath Day, but not from Sabbath for after the Sabbath. Rabbi Ishmael says, one folds garments and makes beds from the day of Atonement to the Sabbath. The fats of the Sabbath are brought on the Day of Atonement but those of the Day of Atonement are not brought on the Sabbath. Rabbi Akiva says, neither are those of the Sabbath brought on the Day of Atonement nor those of the Day of Atonement on the Sabbath.

Halakhah

3. In the House of Rabbi Yannai they said, folding by two persons is forbidden. Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman: On the Sabbath, two together may not fold. If one folds on a footstool it is as if two persons were folding. Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for eating and drinking. Since this mouth is bothersome is smelling, they permitted him to be occupied with words of the Torah. Rabbi Berekhiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Sabbaths and holidays were given only for being occupied with words of the Torah. A baraita supports either one of them: What does one do? Either he sits down and eats or he sits and studies words of the Torah. One verse says, “it is a Sabbath for the Eternal,”Leviticus 23:3 and another verse says, “an assembly for the Eternal,”Deuteronomy 16:8 your God. How is that? Give part of it to the study of Torah and part to eat and to drink. Rabbi Abbahu said, “a Sabbath for the Eternal,”Exodus 20:10 rest like the Eternal. Since the Eternal rested from saying, you also should rest from saying.

It happened that a pious person went to promenade in his vineyard on the Sabbath when he saw there a breach which he decided to repair after the Sabbath. He said, because I wanted to repair I will never repair it. What did the Holy One, praise to Him, do for him? He prepared for him a tent of caper bush which grew there and mended it. From it he was fed and from there was his sustenance all his days.

Rabbi Ḥanina said, with difficulty they permitted greeting on the Sabbath. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, when Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai saw that his mother enjoyed talking much, he said to her, mama, today is Sabbath. It was stated: It is forbidden to pray for his needs on the Sabbath. Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, may one say, “shepherd us, provide for us”? He answered him, these are formulas of benediction.

It was stated: One rinses cups, pots, and plates from Friday Night to the morning, from morning to noon, from noon to afternoon. After afternoon it is forbidden, only for cups it is permitted since drinking has no fixed times. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: An intelligent woman rinses a cup here, a pot there, a plate there; the result is that she waters down her house on the Sabbath.

Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Ḥisda, if the Day of Atonement falls to be on the Sabbath one does not blow, if after the Sabbath one does not make havdalah. Why? Following Rabbi Akiva. But following Rabbi Ishmael he makes havdalah since the fats of the Sabbath are brought on the Day of Atonement. Rabbi Ezra said before Rabbi Mana, even according to Rabbi Ishmael he should not make havdalah, since one only makes havdalah to permit things which were forbidden to him. If he would burn the fats of the Sabbath on the Sabbath, would that not be permitted? Rabbi Samuel the brother of Rabbi Berekhiah said, he should make havdalah since by it he permits to rinse pickled and parboiled food. Rabbi Yose said, he only is permitted to rinse pickled and parboiled food from the time of afternoon prayers or later. Could he make havdalah from the time of afternoon prayers or later? As you take it, there is no cup, there is no light, how can he make havdalah? Rabbi Abun said, in prayer.

Mishnah

1 One saves all holy Scriptures from a fire, whether they be used for reading or not used for reading; even though they be written in any language they have to be hidden. Why does one not read in them? Because of neglect of the House of Study.

Halakhah

“All holy Scriptures,” etc. What is meant by “whether they are used for reading or not used for reading”? Whether they contain errors or do not contain errors. Was it not stated: If a scroll contains two or three errors on every page, one corrects it and reads from it; with four one does not read from it. Since we have stated, “why does one not read in them? Because of neglect of the House of Study;” this implies that there is a difference between Torah and Prophets and Hagiographa.

One does not save from a fire. For him who says, they render hands impure, one saves them from a fire; but for him who says, they do not render hands impure, one does not save them from a fire. They objected: Is there not a Hebrew book which was written in Aramaic; it will not render hands impure but one saves it from a fire, since we have stated: “even though they are written in any language they have to be hidden.” The Mishnah follows Rabbi Simeon, since Rabbi Simeon said, nothing forbidden only rabbinically stands in the way of Holy Scriptures. Do they disagree? There it is because of their degradation, but here everybody agrees that one saves them from a fire. For whom is it needed? For Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel. Even though Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, “also Hagiographa they permitted only that they could be written in Greek,” would he agree here that one saves them from a fire? “It happened that Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel was supervising builders on the the Temple Mount when he an Aramaic version of Job was brought to him. He told the builder to hide it under a row of stones.”

Even though they said, one reads Hagiographa only after the afternoon prayers, nevertheless one studies and preaches about them. If he needs it, he takes and checks. An example: Rabbi, the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose were sitting and explaining the plain sense of a scroll of Lamentations on a Ninth of Av which fell on a Sabbath after the afternoon prayers. They left over one alphabetic poem. They said, we will come tomorrow and finish it. When Rabbi was on the way home, he hurt his finger and recited about himself, “many are the evildoer’s hurts.”Psalms 32:10 The Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him, it is our fault that this happened to you, as it is written, our spirit, “the Eternal’s anointed, was caught by their corruption.”Lamentations 4:20 Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose told him, that could have been said about us if we had not occupied ourselves with it; so much more since we did occupy ourselves with it. He went home, put a dry sponge on it and tied it from the outside with bast. Rabbi Ishmael ben Rabbi Yose said, from this we learned three things: A sponge does not heal but protects; bast is prepared, and one recites from Hagiographa only after afternoon prayers.

Then at a place where there is a House of Study one should not read, at a place where there is no House of Study one should read? You only have what Rabbi Neḥemiah stated, as Rabbi Neḥemiah stated, why may one only read Hagiographa after afternoon prayers? Because of persons’ documents. Because if you were telling him that it is permitted, then he would say, there is nothing wrong if I would occupy myself with my documents. Since you are telling him that it is forbidden, then he will say, since Hagiographa are forbidden, so much more private documents. This implies that Mishnah has precedence over Bible. This supports what Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, as Rabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good; he who studies Mishnah is occupied in an endeavor which deserves reward; he who studies Talmud could not endeavor anything greater than this, always a person should pursue Mishnah more than Talmud. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, this was before Rabbi incorporated most of the Mishnah in the Talmud, but since Rabbi incorporated most of the Mishnah in the Talmud, a person should pursue Talmud more than Mishnah.

“One does not save benedictions which contain pentateuchal materials from a fire. Because of this, they said: Writers of benedictions are burners of the Torah. It happened that there was a writer of benedictions; Rabbi Ishmael went to check him out. When he noticed Rabbi Ishmael’s steps, he took a bundle of benedictions and threw them into a bowl of water. In the following formulation he spoke to him: The punishment for the later deed is worse than the one for the earlier.” Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, one who writes down sermons has no part, one who preaches them is going to be singed, one who listens to him is not rewarded.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, I never looked into a book of sermon concepts, except that once I looked, and I found written there: The 175 paragraphs where in the Torah is written speech, saying, commandment, correspond to the years of our father Abraham, as it is written, “you took gifts from Man,”Psalms 68:18 and it is written, “the great Man among giants.”Joshua 14:15 The 147 songs written in Psalms correspond to the years of our father Jacob. This teaches that all praises by which Israel praise the Holy One, praise to Him, correspond to the years of Jacob, as it is said, “You are Holy,” “throning over the praises of Israel.”Psalms 22:3 The 123 times Israel answer “halleluiah” correspond to the years of Aaron, Halleluiah, “praise God by His holy one,”Psalms 150:1 Aaron his holy one, for Aaron, “the Eternal’s holy one.”Psalms 106:16 Nevertheless I was frightened in the night.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba saw a book of agadah. He said, even if what is written in there is good, the hand who wrote it should be amputated. A person told him, it was written by X’s father. He said, I was saying, the hand who wrote it should be amputated. That happened to him, “as an error which is coming out from the ruler’s mouth.”Ecclesiastes 10:5

“Gospels and books of heretics, some Tannaim say, one tears out the Names and burns them; some Tannaim say, one burns them with their Names. Rabbi Tarfon said, I would hit my sons; if they came into my house I would burn them together with their Names. For if a persecutor would persecute me I would seek asylum in a pagan temple but would not seek asylum in heretics’ houses, for the worshippers of idolatry do not know about Him, how could they disavow Him? But the heretics know Him and disavow Him; about them David said, “Your haters,”Psalms 139:21o Eternal, I will hate, etc. This homily they preached: If in order to bring peace between a man and his wife the verse commands that the Name written in holiness be erased, it is only logical that the books of heretics which propagate ill will and quarrel between Israel and their Father in Heaven should be burned with their Names.”

Mishnah

2 One saves the case of a scroll with the scroll, and the case of phylacteries with the phylacteries even if there are coins inside. Where does one save it to? To a side street which is a dead end; Ben Bathyra says, also one open on both ends.

Halakhah

Our Mishnah if it is not connected; but if it is connected it is like its body. One understands the case of the book with the book. The case of phylacteries with the phylacteries? Rabbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rabbi Zeira understands it from the following: “The Eternal’s angel is camping around those who fear Him and saves them.”Psalms 34:7 Similarly, it says. “then these men were bound in their coats.”Daniel 3:21

“Even if there are coins inside.” This parallels what Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Ḥinena from Cartagena in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: On a saddle bag full of coins one puts a loaf and may move it.

“Where does one save it to? To a side street which is a dead end.” Therefore not to one which is a thoroughfare. Everywhere you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down, but here you are saying, one who is walking is not like one who is putting down. But one who is throwing. Everywhere you are saying, one who throws is not liable, but here you are saying, one who throws is liable. Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: we are dealing with the case that they did not make an eruv. Ben Bathyra is like Rabbi Judah, as we have stated there: “One may move things under bridges which are thoroughfares, the words of Rabbi Judah, but the Sages prohibit.”

Mishnah

3 One saves food for three meals; human food for humans and animal feed for animals. How is this? If the fire started Friday Night, one saves food for three meals, in the morning one saves food for two meals, in the afternoon one saves food for one meal. Rabbi Yose says, one always saves food for three meals.

Halakhah

Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Mamal, this is Rabbi Nehemiah’s who said, it can be taken only if necessary. Rabbi Yose said, the rabbis’ reason there is that everything in the house is prepared, but here if you would say so he would save from today for tomorrow. The Mishnah is from Rabbi Hondikos who said, one always saves food for three meals. Explain it as a case where the fire started Friday evening before he ate. What should one say on the day of Atonement? Should he not save anything following the rabbis? Everybody agrees that one saves food for one meal because of the danger.

It was stated: One saves an average portion for a sick person and for a child, but for a glutton according to his habit. One prepares an eruv for a sick person or a child according to their habit but for a glutton an average portion.

It was stated that one does not plan to circumvent the law. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, one does plan to circumvent the law. Some Tannaim state, one saves and then invites; some Tannaim state, one invites and then saves. He who says, one saves and then invites follows him who says, one does plan to circumvent the law. But he who says, one invites and then saves follows him who says, one does not plan to circumvent the law.

It was stated: One extinguishes to save. This baraita follows Rabbi Simeon who said, nothing forbidden only rabbinically stands in the way of Holy Scriptures.

It was stated: One may cause impurity to save. But was it not stated, “she may not touch anything holy,” including heave? There is no difference between heave and Second Tithe. What about it? On condition that he not proceed on the Sabbath the way he proceeds on a weekday.

It was stated: Just as one saves from a fire, so one saves from a raiding troop, from a river, from a collapsing building, and from anything that is being lost.

Mishnah

4 One saves a bag full of loaves even if it contains food for a hundred meals, and loaves of dried figs, and wine amphoras, and one says to others, come and save for yourselves. If they are intelligent they settle accounts with him after the Sabbath. Where does one save to? To a courtyard with an eruv. Ben Bathyra says, even if there is no eruv.

Halakhah

Does the Mishnah follow Rabbi Yose who said, “one always saves food for three meals”? Since all is one body, all of it counts as one meal.

“One says to others, come and save for yourselves,” since ordinarily one invites guests for the Sabbath.

“If they are intelligent they settle accounts with him after the Sabbath.” There we have stated, “he leaves his toga with him and settles his account after the Sabbath.” There you say, he has his pledge with him; here what do you have? Rabbi Abba Mari said, because of this we taught, “if they were intelligent.”

Mishnah

5 There he also brings out all his utensils, and he puts on all he can wear and wraps around all he can wrap. Rabbi Yose says, 18 garments. He can come back and put on, and says to others: come and save with me.

Halakhah

Rabbi Yose says, 18 garments. And they are these: The burnus, arm cover, and money belt, and felt cap, and a kafia, and a linen tunic, and a woolen shirt, and two felt stockings, two garters, and two breeches, two shoes, and the hat on his head, and the belt on his hips, and shawls on his arms.

“And says to others come and save with me,” since ordinarily one lends garments on the Sabbath.

Mishnah

6 Rabbi Simeon ben Nanas says, one spreads kid leather over a chest, a box, or a cupboard which are on fire since it is singed. One builds a wall out of vessels, whether full or empty, so that the fire does not cross over. Rabbi Yose forbids new clay vessels full of water since they cannot withstand the heat, spring leaks, and extinguish the fire.

Halakhah

This is how the Mishnah reads: Before they are on fire. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Abba bar Mamal in the name of Rav: If a scroll started burning at one side one puts water on the other side; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If the fire burned on both sides one spreads it out and reads in it; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If a toga started burning at one side one puts water on the other side; if it was extinguished it was extinguished. If the fire burned on both sides one takes it and wraps oneself in it; if it was extinguished it was extinguished.

Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeira: This is Rabbi Yose’s. We were of the opinion to say, where what Rabbi Yose says and the rabbis disagree? When he made a barrier of vessels. But not if he made a barrier of water. Since Rabbi Samuel said in the name of Rabbi Zeira: This is Rabbi Yose’s, it implies that there is disagreement even if he made a barrier of water.

Mishnah

7 If a Gentile comes to extinguish one tells him neither to extinguish nor not to extinguish since you are not responsible for him resting. But if a minor comes to extinguish one may not listen to him since you are responsible for him resting.

Halakhah

In the days of Rabbi Immi there was a fire in the village. Rabbi Immi sent a crier to the markets of the Gentiles saying: “He who works will not lose.” Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Yose said, that was danger to life. But if there was danger to life, Rabbi Immi himself should have fought the fire! Did we not state, in any case of danger to life one does not say that the necessary work be done by women or minors, but it should be done even by adults, even by Jewish persons. “It happened that there was a fire in the courtyard of Yose ben Simai in Shiḥin, and the garrison of the barracks of Sepphoris came to fight it but he did not let them fight it; he said, let the collector collect his due. Immediately there formed a cloud which extinguished it. After the Sabbath he sent to each of them a tetradrachma and to their commander 50 denarii.” The Sages said, there was no need for him to do that. A Nabatean was in the neighborhood of Rabbi Jonah. There was a fire in Rabbi Jonah’s neighborhood; the Nabatean wanted to fight it but Rabbi Jonah did not let him. He said to him, because of my property! He said, yes. And everything was saved. Rabbi Jonah from Kefar-Immi spread his garment over the grain stack and the fire retreated from it.

“But if a minor comes to extinguish one may not listen to him.” But was it not stated, if one saw him going out and collecting grasses, one need not interfere? There he has no need for grasses; here he sees the need for fire fighting.

Mishnah

8 One may put a pot over a light so that it does not set fire to a beam, and over a child’s excrement, and over a scorpion to prevent it from stinging. Rabbi Judah said, this happened before Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Arab and he said, I fear that he incurred liability for a purification sacrifice.

Halakhah

“One may put a pot over a light.” It comes following what Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi Yannai said: I did not hear from my father; my sister told me in his name. An egg which was laid on the Sabbath one props up against a vessel so it should not roll off. But one does not cover it with a vessel. But Samuel says, one may cover it with a vessel.

“And over a child’s excrement.” Is that not chicken feed? Rabbi Uqban said, explain it if it is soft, that it should not be smeared around.

“And over a scorpion to prevent it from stinging.” “This happened before Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Arab and he said, I fear that he incurred liability for a purification sacrifice.” Rabbi Ulla said, eighteen years did he spend in Arab and only these two cases came before him. He said, “Galilee, Galilee, you are hating Torah; in the end you will work for discharged veterans.”

Mishnah

9 If a Gentile lit a candle, the Jew may use its light; but if he did it for the Jew it is forbidden. If he drew water to let his animals drink, the Jew may let his animals drink, but if he did it for the Jew it is forbidden. If the Gentile built a ramp to descend on it, the Jew may descend after him, but if he did it for the Jew it is forbidden. It happened that Rabban Gamliel and the Elders arrived in a ship, the Gentile make the ramp to descend on it and the Elders descended on it.

Halakhah

For himself and for a Jew? Let us hear from the following. Samuel was received at a Persian’s. The light went out. The Persian went and wanted to light it; Samuel turned his face around. When he saw him occupied with his securities he knew that he did not light for him; Samuel again turned his face. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, this implies that for himself and for a Jew it is forbidden. Rabbi Jonah said, there is a difference since one does not bother a person to leave his house. Rabbi Eliezer said, if it is since one does not bother a person to leave his house, why did Samuel turn his face around?

“They asked him, may we descend? He told them, since he did not do it for us we are permitted to descend.”

Mishnah

1 All implements may be taken on the Sabbath and their doors with them, even if they were disassembled on the Sabbath; they are not similar to doors of a house because the latter are not prepared.

Halakhah

“All implements may be taken on the Sabbath,” etc. There is spelled out more for doors of a house and there is spelled out more for doors of implements. There is spelled out more for doors of a house, for even if they were unhinged on Friday they may not be moved on the Sabbath. There is spelled out more for doors of implements, for even if they were unhinged on the Sabbath they may be used on the Sabbath.

“Because the latter are not prepared,” and they are used only connected to the ground. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: “Originally all implements could be taken on the Sabbath. Because they were suspected of desecrating holidays and Sabbaths as it is written, “at that time I saw in Judah that they were working wine presses on the Sabbath”Nehemiah 13:15 ... and loading on donkeys, etc., they forbade them everything. After they were fenced in they continued to permit to them until they permitted them everything except the big saw and the blade of the plow. Rabbi Yose said, also the engraver’s stylo. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also the anchor.” “A mortar, if there is garlic in it one may take it, otherwise one may not take it; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if it is a small mortar used at table then it is like a bowl and one moves it on the Sabbath.” Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Ila in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, they formulated before implements were permitted.

There, we have stated: “A door-bolt, Rabbi Joshua says one may slip it off one door and hang it on another on the Sabbath. Rabbi Tarfon says, it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard.” In the House of Rabbi Yannai they say, the Mishnah is about a courtyard without an eruv. If it is about a courtyard without an eruv, is that what we did state, “it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard”? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Ḥananiah reaches it in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: they formulated before implements were permitted. If they formulated before implements were permitted, is that what we have stated: “it is like any other implement and may be moved in the courtyard”? Like the “three implements which can be carried in a courtyard: a small knife, the chopper of fig cake, and the soup ladle.”

The bugle, he blows a third time on the roof and puts it down at that spot. Is it not an implement? Rabbi Yudan said, they formulated before implements were permitted.

Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Half-pipes and rods were formulated before implements were permitted. One may not move planks of a ship on the Sabbath. If they cover implements or food they are like covers of any implement and may be moved on the Sabbath. Rabbi La said, even although you are saying “like covers of implements,” this is only if they have the designation of an implement.

Anything which may be moved by two people may be moved by two; by four or five it is forbidden. Rabbi Zeira said, since you are saying that by two it is permitted, even by four or five it is permitted. That is what Rabbi Mana said, in the days of Rabbi Yose children were carrying Rabbi Judah ben Pazi’s bench and old men were helping them. Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: It happened that they moved the carriage of Rabbi’s house on the Sabbath. Is that not an implement? in case you say that because one used only its place one could not move it on the Sabbath. Rav Judah in the name of Samuel: Big boxes and big pails may be moved on the Sabbath, in case you say because they are used only at their place one could not move them on the Sabbath. Rabbi Abba in the name of Samuel: A bed press one may move on the Sabbath. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav: One may move the upper and lower cross-beams but not the vertical beams. Rabbi Abba said, this refers to installed vertical beams; but the vertical beams at rest are permitted. Rods and ropes of the loom one may move on the Sabbath; this is what Rabbi Yose said: Rabbi Joḥanan asked Rabbi Judah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may move. Rabbi Judah ben Pazi did not say so but: Rabbi Joḥanan asked Rabbi Judah ben Levi, may one move appurtenances of a loom on the Sabbath? He told him, one may not move. He asked him, why? He answered, because one may not move.

Mishnah

2 A person may take a hammer to crack nuts, an axe to cut the fig cake, a saw to shave cheese with, a rake to rake with it dried figs, a spade or a pitchfork to feed a child, a spindle or a spinning top to stick into something, a sewing needle to remove a thorn, and one of sack-clothiers to open a door.

Halakhah

“A person may take a hammer to crack nuts.” Therefore not to open nuts not. Is the Mishnah Rabbi Nehemiah’s, since Rabbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need?

Rabbi Abba Rabbi Judah, Rabbi Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabbi Neḥemiah about the press, the plank, and the mace; the press with which he presses, the plank on which one beats them, the mace with which he smashes them. An implement dedicated to a forbidden use may be moved only for a need; one for permitted use both with and without a need.

Rabbi Yose said, look how lenient they were on the Sabbath, that even things which are not to be used on the Sabbath they permitted for use on the Sabbath. As Rabbi Eleazar said, why is a tripod impure? Because the waiter eats on it. Why is its base impure? Because the waiter stands on it. Look how stringent they were in impurity, that even things which are not used as a table they declared impure as a table.

“A spade or a pitchfork to feed a child, a spindle or a spinning top to stick into something.” Rabbi Simon said, Rabbi Abbahu permitted me to apply eye salve on the Sabbath. Rabbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rav Sheshet: The Mishnah implies this, “a sewing needle to remove a thorn,” since what would be the difference between this and a thorn? Rabbi Abba asked Rabbi Mana, may one compound it on a holiday? He told him, it is not food.

Mishnah

3 If a stick used to stir olives has a knot at its top it is an object of impurity, otherwise it is impervious to impurity. In any case it may be used on the Sabbath.

Halakhah

In the House of Rabbi Yannai they said, a stick which he prepared in order to check the olives. How did he know? If it was dirtied by fluid it was proof that the work of loading was completed; otherwise it was proof that the work of loading was not completed. Rabbi Mana said to him, Samuel only stated that he was fishing out olives with it. A stick which one prepared to close the window, should we say that he closes with it if it was tied and hanging, otherwise he may not close with it? “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if it is prepared even if it is neither tied nor hanging.” Did not Rabbi Joḥanan say, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rabbi tied but not hanging? Rabbi Yudan said, since he removed it and took it into his hand it becomes similar to a key.

Mishnah

4 All implements may be taken on the Sabbath except for the large saw and the blade of the plow. All implements may be taken whether for a need or not for a need; Rabbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need.

Halakhah

Rav Judah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Nehemiah who said, “they may be taken only for a need.” Rabbi Joḥanan and the rabbis there. One said, for a need, for a need of itself; not for a need, not for a need of itself. Rabbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself. But the other said, for a need, for a need of itself or of its place; not for a need, not for a need of itself or of its place. Rabbi Nehemiah says, they may be taken only for a need of itself or of its place. It was stated: Rabbi Judah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one moves full containers for no need and about empty containers which he intended to fill. Where did they disagree? About those which he has no intention to fill, where the House of Shammai prohibit and the House of Hillel permit. Does the House of Shammai come to parallel Rabbi Nehemiah? You say, practice follows Rabbi Nehemiah, but practice does not follow the House of Shammai.

Mishnah

5 Of all implements which may be taken on the Sabbath their breakage also may be taken as long as they are for some use: pieces from a trough to cover the top of an amphora, and of glass to cover the mouth of a phial. Rabbi Judah says, only if they can be used similarly to their original use: pieces from a trough to pour pap into them, and of glass to pour olive oil into them.

Halakhah

“Glass to scrape the head of the weaver’s beam.” And here, you are saying so? Rabbi Aḥa, Rabbi Maisha, Rabbi priest in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: Here if it is thick, there if it is sharp. Some want to say, here about moving, there about bringing out.

Mishnah

6 If the stone in a gourd-bottle does not fall out when used to fill, one may fill with it; otherwise one may not fill with it. If a piece of vine is tied to a pail one may use it to draw water on the Sabbath.

Halakhah

We have stated: “and a stone contained in it.” In the House of Rabbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph and Rabbi Joḥanan disagreed. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph as our Mishnah, Rabbi Joḥanan as stated by the House of Rabbi. The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “If the stone in a gourd-bottle does not fall out when used to fill, one may fill with it.” Since it is squeezed in it it is like its body. The final clause disagrees with Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph: “otherwise one may not fill with it.” Rabbi Yudan said, since it is used as ballast, one carries the gourd on the stone. What does Rabbi Joḥanan do with this? He carries the gourd itself. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Joḥanan: “A person may carry his son with a stone in his hand, a basket and a stone in it,” and in the House of Rabbi it was stated, “and food and a stone contained in it.” Rabbi priest in the name of the rabbis there: they treated a baby like food. There they are saying: they made the stone in the hand of the baby like an expert amulet in the hand of the baby.

Mishnah

7 Rabbi Eliezer says, if the window plug is connected and hanging one may plug with it, otherwise one may not plug with it. But the Sages say, in any case one may plug with it. All implement covers which have handles may be taken on the Sabbath. Rabbi Yose said, when has this been said? Covers of the ground. But covers of implements in any case may be taken on the Sabbath.

Halakhah

What is a dragged bolt? Rabbi Joḥanan said, tied but not hanging. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rabbi tied but not hanging. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the single opinion here is parallel to the anonymous one there, and the anonymous there to the individual here. Rabbi Yose asked Rabbi Jeremiah: how does one act in actuality? He said to him, since Rabbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me a bolt of the House of Rabbi tied but not hanging, this implies that one acts following Rabbi Judah. There came Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Samuel, practice follows Rabbi Judah, except that it be tied to the door. Rabbi Yannai the father-in-law of Rabbi Immi said, only if it is tied to the door by something which can fasten it. Rabbi Eleazar’s bolt was tied with bast. If it was detached it is forbidden; loose? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis, he supports it with his finger tips.

“All implement covers,” etc. Abba bar Kahana, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, practice follows Rabbi Yose.

Mishnah

1 One removes even four or five baskets of straw or of grain because of guests or because of obstruction of the House of Study, but not the storehouse. One removes pure heave, and demai, and First Tithe of which its heave was taken, and Second Tithe or sancta which were redeemed, and dry lupines because it is food of the poor; but not tevel, nor First Tithe whose heave was not taken, nor Second Tithe and sancta which were not redeemed, nor serpentary, nor mustard seed. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel permits serpentary because it is food of ravens.

Halakhah

Rabbi Eleazar objected, did we not state “bundles of straw”? Is straw not as if dispersed? “One removes even four or five baskets,” etc. Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Joshiah, what is the measure of baskets? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since we have stated there: “The contributions for the Temple were removed in three baskets of three seah each.”

There, we have stated: “one who brings out wine to mix a cup,” etc. Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Joshiah, what is the measure of cups? He told him, let us infer the hidden from the explicit since Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, the Four Cups of Passover add up to an Italic quartarius of wine.

May one remove from the storehouse in this kind? Let us hear from the following: They are of one opinion that one may not touch the storehouse but one may make a path to enter and leave.

There are Tannaim who state, one moves dema. There are Tannaim who state, one does not move. Rabbi Eleazar said, he who said that one moves, if the heave was pure; but he who said that one does not move, if the heave was impure. Or about one where there was enough lift, but not about one where there was not enough lift. Who said that one moves? Rabbi Eliezer, as we have stated: “Rabbi Eliezer said, the seah which fell in is the seah which came up.”

Rabbi Eleazar said, a person can say on a Friday, this will be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this will be heave tomorrow. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, nobody can say on a Friday, this will be heave tomorrow. A Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun: “If a vessel was immersed that day and somebody filled it from an amphora with tevel tithe, if he said, its contents should be heave of the tithe tomorrow, that is, after nightfall, then this is heave. If he said, that should be eruv, he did not say anything.” Explain it as a case where he transgressed. But Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “He says,” and you say, if he transgressed? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun retracted that. What is to be done? “From before I will separate it.” Think about it, if it was pure heave, “from before I will eat it.” Think about it, if it was impure heave, “from before I will deposit it in a corner.”

It was stated: One may move both pure and impure heave. Rabbi Zeira said, it means that one is permitted to move tevel that has a condition on it on the Sabbath. What does he do? He thinks about a part of it and eats the rest.

It was stated: “One may move mustard seed because it is pigeon feed, and rue because it is food for gazelles, and glass because it is food for ostriches. Rabbi Nathan said, then one should be able to move shoots since elephants eat them.”

“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel permits serpentary because it is food of ravens.” Where do we hold? If he keeps a certain kind and that kind is sold on the market, everybody agrees that it is permitted. If he does not keep a certain kind and that kind is not sold on the market, everybody agrees that it is prohibited. But we must hold that he keeps a certain kind and that kind is not sold on the market. The rabbis said, since that kind is not sold on the market, it is as if he did not keep it. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, since he keeps that kind it is as if that kind were sold on the market.

Rabbi Zeira said, this only follows Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina said, we were ascending with Rabbi to the Hot Springs of Gadara when he said to us, choose smooth stones for yourselves; then you are permitted to move them tomorrow. Rabbi Yose said, there is a difference here because it is like a chair.

Mishnah

2 One moves bundles of straw, and bundles of wood, and bundles of shoots if they were prepared as animal feed; otherwise one does not move them. One turns over a basket before the chicks that they may climb up and down. A chicken which escaped one may push until it re-enters. One helps calves and fillies to walk in the public domain and a woman may help her son to walk. Rabbi Judah said, when? If he lifts one foot and puts the other one down but if he draws them it is forbidden.

Halakhah

A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “If there is a stone on top of an amphora he tilts it on its side and it falls down.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi: He explained this about one who forgot. A Mishnah disagrees with him who said, anything which is specifically intended for something prohibited is prohibited, as we have stated: “one turns a basket upside down in front of the chicks that they may climb up and down.” And it was stated about this, when they climbed on it by themselves it is forbidden to move it. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rabbi Zeira, explain it if it is disgusting. He told him, did not Rabbi Hoshaiah state, even a seah, even a three-qab. Can you say that seah and three-qab are disgusting?

Mishnah

3 One does not use midwifery for animals on a holiday but one helps. One helps a woman in childbirth on the Sabbath, and calls a midwife for her from place to place, and desecrates the Sabbath for her, and ties the umbilical cord; Rabbi Yose says, also one cuts it. All that is necessary for circumcision one does on the Sabbath.

Halakhah

“One does not use midwifery for animals,” etc. What is help? “He brings wine and blows it into his nostrils, and puts his hand down and receives him, and moves her teats and puts in his mouth. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, also one makes the animal love on a holiday. How does one do that? One puts a block of salt on her belly and she wants to nurse her son.”

“And one calls a midwife for her from place to place.” As what we have stated there: “Not only these but even a midwife who comes to assist at a birth.”

“And desecrates the Sabbath for her.” Samuel says, one makes a bonfire for her even at the summer solstice.

“And ties the umbilical cord.” As in the following: The slave girl of Bar Qappara expected to give birth on a Sabbath. She came and asked her master, who told her to go and ask the midwife. She said, there is no midwife. He said, go and follow your usage; she said, there is no usage. He said, go and cut it. This is like Rabbi Yose.

This is how the Mishnah reads: “Everything that is necessary for a woman in childbirth one does on the Sabbath.” It was stated: “Concerning the placenta on the Sabbath, the rich women hide it in oil, the poor ones hide it in straw and sand. Both hide it in the earth, to give a pledge to Earth.”

Mishnah

1 Rabbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement before the Sabbath he brings it openly on the Sabbath and in times of danger he brings it covered by the testimony of witnesses. In addition, Rabbi Eliezer said, one cuts down trees to make charcoal to make iron; Rabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any work which he might have done on Friday does not push the Sabbath aside; circumcision which is impossible to perform on Friday pushes the Sabbath aside.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, we were of the opinion to say that Rabbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases. Since Rabbi Eliezer needed to explain “first fruits;” since “first fruits” mentioned with the ʿomer push the Sabbath aside, so also “first fruits” mentioned with the Two Breads push the Sabbath aside; this implies that Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree in all cases. Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, Rabbi Eliezer disagrees in all cases, and why did Rabbi Eliezer have to explain “first fruits” “first fruits”? Only because their essence pushes aside the Sabbath but their enabling actions are work. They objected, did we not state, the lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? Rabbi Jonah said, to bring it from the top of the palm tree. But did we not state, the shofar and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside? To bring it from outside the Sabbath boundary. And was it stated so: One does not scratch, and one does not scratch, and one does not break off. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The lulav and its enabling actions push the Sabbath aside. Rabbi Jonah said, the baraita was finished. It was stated: It happened that Rabbi instructed following Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, what reason did Rabbi have to disregard the words of the Sages and to act following Rabbi Eliezer? Rabbi Hoshaiah said, we asked Rabbi Judah the circumciser and he told us, it was about a dead-end street, as we had stated that it is forbidden to move from it into the houses and from the houses into it. Rabbi Abbahu said, I explained it about a baby and a knife being in the dead-end street on the Sabbath; and it is not forbidden to move in the entire dead-end street.

They asked Rabbi Yose: Since you say about implements which were resting anywhere in the courtyard one may move them in the entire courtyard, similarly concerning implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street, may one move them in the entire dead-end street? They asked him in Šabbat and he did not answer since Rabbi Yose said each matter only at its place. When they came to Eruvin he told them in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: one may move implements which were resting anywhere in a dead-end street in the entire dead-end street; similarly implements which were resting in a courtyard one may move in the entire courtyard; Rav said, one may move them only four cubits. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, Rav is consistent and Rabbi Johanan is consistent. Since Rabbi Joḥanan says that a beam permits without participation, it is he who says that one may move in the entire dead-end street. Since Rav said that a beam does not permit without participation, it is he who says that one may move them only within four cubits. In Rabbi Joḥanan’s opinion, why does one participate in the entire dead-end street? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, to make all domains one.

Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: For the knife for circumcision one makes walls of people and brings it. There was a case for Bar Marinus. He asked Rabbi Simon who permitted. He asked Rabbi Immi who forbade. Rabbi Simon was offended. But was it not stated, if one asked a Sage who permitted, one may ask another one who might forbid? Rabbi Yudan said, the case was as follows: He asked Rabbi Immi who forbade, Rabbi Simon who permitted. Rabbi Immi was offended, following what was stated, if one asked a Sage who forbade, one may not ask another one who might permit.

In the days of Rabbi Jeremiah they forgot the keys to the great study hall. They came and asked him, who told them: if you see a great mass of people passing by bring it by walls of people. The strength of Rabbi Jeremiah is from the following: A wall of people made with or without the knowledge of the participants is a wall of people.

Rabbi Judah bar Pazi instructed to bring it in shoes. Rabbi Ḥinena bar Pappos instructed to make a wall of people and to bring it in shoes. Rabbi Samuel ben Eudaimon had a case to circumcise his son, Rav Shishaa. They forgot to bring the knife. He asked Rabbi Mana who said, it should be deferred until tomorrow. He asked Rabbi Isaac ben Eleazar who told them, you did not forget to mix spiced wine, but to bring a knife you forgot; it should be deferred until tomorrow.

Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥuna: Our Mishnah implies that it is forbidden to make walls of people, as we have stated: “Rabbi Eliezer says, if one did not bring the implement before the Sabbath he brings it openly on the Sabbath.” For if you are saying that one may make, could he not find it possible to make and bring it?

They asked Hillel the Elder: What to do with people who did not bring their knives with them? He told them, I was informed of the practice but I forgot. But let Israel act; if they are not prophets they are descendants of prophets. Then everybody whose Passover sacrifice was a lamb stuck it in its fleece, for a kid goat he bound it to its horns; it turned out that the Passover sacrifices brought their knives with them. When he saw the action he remembered the practice. He told them, this is what I heard from Shemaya and Abtalion.

Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rabbi Eleazar. Any teaching which has no pedigree is no teaching. There, we have stated: “If he rode on it, leaned on it, hung on it, used it to cross a river, folded the bridle on it, put his toga on it, it is disqualified.” This learns from that and that learns from this. This learns from that that if he hung on it a knife to slaughter it it remains qualified. That learns from this, that any action which is done for sancta is not work. Why did they not allow it to them by means of walls of people? It must follow Rabbi Immi. Even if you are saying following Rabbi Simon, just as they could not remember this so they did not remember that. Rabbi Abbin said, but it is impossible that in two Sabbatical periods there should be no 14 which falls on the Sabbath! How could they not have remembered? To confer greatness on Hillel.

It was stated: “Rabbi Eliezer says, just as slaughter pushes the Sabbath aside so the preparations of slaughter push the Sabbath aside. Rabbi Akiva said to him, no. If you speak about slaughter which is impossible to be done on Friday, what can you infer about preparations of slaughter than can be done on Friday? Rabbi Eliezer said to him, the public parts will prove which he could make on Friday which nevertheless push aside the Sabbath. What is the difference between preparations of slaughter before the slaughter and preparations of slaughter after slaughter? Rabbi Akiva said to him, about preparations of slaughter after slaughter when the slaughter had already overridden the Sabbath, what does this imply for preparations of slaughter before slaughter when the slaughter had not yet overridden the Sabbath? Another explanation: Maybe the sacrifice would be found disqualified, then it turned out that the Sabbath was pushed aside without a slaughter.”

What can you say about a baby? Maybe the baby would become sick; then the Sabbath would be pushed aside without circumcision. They objected: If the altar collapsed on the Sabbath, it will not be possible to build on the Sabbath! A kind of altar can be built the day before. Think of it, if it developed a wart? It cannot be cut on the Sabbath! Warts can be cut on the day before. Think of it, if the fourteenth falls on a Sabbath, there cannot be sprinkling on the Sabbath! Sprinkling is done on the day before.

Mishnah

2 One does everything necessary for circumcision; one circumcises, and uncovers, and drains, and puts a bandage and cumin on it. If he did not grind on Friday he chews with his teeth and puts it on. If he did not mix wine and oil, he gives each one separately. One does not make a new dressing for it but binds a rag around it. If he did not prepare this on Friday he winds it around his finger and brings it even from another courtyard.

Halakhah

“Circumcising he shall circumcise.”Genesis 17:13 A decision for two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for uncovering. One for circumcision, the other for the fibers. So far following Rabbi Akiva who said, these are expressions of additions. How do we know it for Rabbi Ishmael who said, these are double expressions in the style of the Torah, “going I went, desiring you desired”Genesis 31:30“, stealing you were stolen”Genesis 40:15? Rabbi Judah ben Pazi said, “then she said, a blood bridegroom for circumcisions,”Exodus 4:26 from there that there are two circumcisions, one for the circumcision, the other for uncovering; one for circumcision, the other for the fibers. Rav said, “circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from one born circumcised. “Circumcising he shall circumcise,” from here that an uncircumcised Jew cannot circumcise; not to speak of an uncircumcised Gentile. Rabbi Levi said, it is written: “But you have to keep My Covenant,”Genesis 17:9 you and yours.

It was stated: “A Jew may circumcise a Samaritan but a Samaritan may not circumcise a Jew since he circumcises in the name of Mount Gerizim, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him, where do we find that circumcision needs intent? Let him continue to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim until he dies!”

“The drawn should not circumcise in case he gets into danger, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Yose said to him, many drawn ones were in the days of Ben Koziba, they all circumcised, lived, and had sons and daughters. One has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the drawn, the one born circumcised, and the circumcised convert. Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated: The House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from the one born circumcised; because that is a compressed prepuce; what did they disagree about? About the convert who converted when already circumcised, for the House of Shammai said one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him, but the House of Hillel say, one does not have to draw a drop of covenant blood from him.” Rabbi Issac bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaiah: Practice follows the words of the student. There came a case before Rav, who said: Since we have stated that it is a compressed prepuce, it is implied that he certainly is uncircumcised and one pushes the Sabbath away for him. Rabbi Abbahu said, one does not push the Sabbath away for him but one has to draw a drop of covenant blood from him. A son was born to Rav Ada bar Ahava in that condition. He squeezed it, he died. Rabbi Abin said, testicles became injured and he fasted for him; he died. The rabbis of Caesarea said, his penis was damaged and he fasted for him; he died.

Rabbi Joḥanan bar Marius asked, if it was mixed at the bottom, may one again stir on top?

Mishnah

3 One bathes the baby before and after the circumcision by sprinkling on him with one’s hand but not with a vessel. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, one bathes the baby on the third day which falls on the Sabbath as it is said, “it was on the third day when they were hurting.”Genesis 34:25 One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt or for a hermaphrodite; Rabbi Judah permits for the hermaphrodite.

Halakhah

We have stated: “One washes the baby.” It was stated in the House of Rabbi: “One washes the circumcision.” Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Practice follows him who says, “one washes the baby.” Rabbi Yose said, you are forced to say, one washes the baby. Samuel stated, one never withholds either oil or warm water from a wound on the Sabbath. Rabbi Yose said, my teacher Rabbi Zeira always was coming to say to me, state in your Mishnah, not only this but one sprinkles warm water on a wound on the Sabbath. If you are saying, “one washes the circumcision,” what is the difference between an adult and a baby?

Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar. Practice follows Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah. Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah’s reason: “it was on the third day when they hurt.” It does not say, “when it hurt,” but “when they hurt,” at a time when all their limbs hurt them. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joḥanan ordered for the women having newborns, that all treatments which you give to a sick person on the Sabbath should be given if the third day falls on a Sabbath. Samuel said, because of the danger. Rabbi Yose asked, if it is because of the danger one heats hot water for him! Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: One heats hot water for him. And it was stated thus: A person heats a linen cloth and puts it on his belly on the Sabbath. A person may not take a bottle full of hot water and put it on his belly on the Sabbath. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, on the contrary it is permitted.

“One does not desecrate the Sabbath for a case of doubt or for a hermaphrodite; Rabbi Judah permits for the hermaphrodite.” There, we have stated: “Everybody is liable to be seen except the deaf-and-dumb, the insane, the minor, the sexless, and the hermaphrodite.”

What does Rabbi Judah say in this case? Let us hear from the following: Rabbi Joḥanan ben Dahavai said in the name of Rabbi Judah, neither does the blind one. Nobody says “neither” unless he agree with the preceding statement. The argument of Rabbi Judah seems to be inverted. There he says except, but here he says including. Rabbi Judah and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rabbi Judah emphasizes male, the rabbis emphazise uncircumcised. Why does the verse add male? Only if he be totally male. But Rabbi Judah emphasizes male, why does the verse add uncircumcised? Even if he is only partially uncircumcised. But here, “all your maleness,” except the hermaphrodite.

Mishnah

4 If one had two children to circumcise, one on Friday and one on the Sabbath. If he forgot and circumcised the one for Friday on the Sabbath he is liable. One to circumcise on Sunday and one on the Sabbath; if he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rabbi Joshua declares him not liable.

Halakhah

“If one had two children,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is Rabbi Meir’s who said, for something where there is a commandment performed one is not liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is liable is disputed. Rabbi Simeon says, where there is a commandment performed one is liable, but if no commandment is performed whether he is not liable is disputed. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The word of Rabbi Meir is, on condition that it be a sheep without blemish, a yearling, and a well-being sacrifice fit to be changed into a Passover sacrifice. One understands from this three consequences. One understands something which is not a fixed number. And which is not usually exchanged. And doing something which fulfills a commandment. What is meant by “something which is not a fixed number”? Rabbi Jeremiah wanted to say that the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rabbi Yose wanted to say, where you cannot determine the amount. When Rabbi Yose came to these “children in doubt” he used to say, Rabbi Jeremiah taught us correctly. Could you say that you cannot determine the amount? But the Torah did not specify how many Passover sacrifices should push the Sabbath aside in any given year. Rav Ḥisda said, one may explain the words of Rabbi Simeon if a group was there which did not slaughter. Rabbi Zeira said, the word of Rabbi Yannai implies that he forgot and circumcised the one for the Sabbath on Friday. It he circumcised him in the morning, Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Yannai was of the opinion that he is not liable. Rabbi Abba said, he is liable. In relation to what did Rabbi Yannai say it? He comes to tell you in which cases can there be a switching of children. In Rabbi Zeira’s opinion following Rabbi Yannai Rav followed Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yose, what Rav Ḥisda said follows Rabbi Simeon, and what Rabbi Zeira said follows Rabbi Meir. Can one object anything between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon? Do we find a difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon about the remainder? How do you treat the babies in doubt? Like something which is a fixed amount or something which is not a fixed amount? If you are treating it like something which is a fixed amount ... only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Rabbi Yose said, the words of the rabbis make the case like something which is not a fixed amount: only if there remains another baby to circumcise. Come and see: If he anticipated his time he is not liable, if he delayed his time he is liable? Rav Huna said, the Mishnah is the other way around, as it was stated: Rabbi Simeon said, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua did not disagree about one which was to be circumcised after the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath that he is liable, but one who was to be circumcised before the Sabbath if he circumcised him on the Sabbath where Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice and Rabbi Joshua declares him not liable. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, because of this objection it was difficult for Rabbi Yannai, only if he forgot and circumcised the one of the Sabbath on Friday. Rabbi Ada bar Ahavah said, these are the words of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Simeon, but the words of Rabbi Yose are: Even if no commandment is performed he is not liable since he erred on behalf of a commandment.

If he finished he can return only for fibers which would invalidate the circumcision. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rabbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision. Which statement of Rabbi Yose? That which we stated there: “Rabbi Yose says, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath, if he forgot and took the lulav out into the public domain he is not liable because he took it out with permission.” Does the same hold for a knife for circumcision, the same for circumcision unleavened bread? Since Rabbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rabbi Yose, even if he finished he may even return for fibers which do not invalidate the circumcision, this implies the same even for a knife for circumcision, the same for circumcision unleavened bread.

Mishnah

5 A baby is circumcised on the eighth day, the ninth, the tenth, the eleventh, the twelfth, no less and no more. In the normal case, on the eighth. If he was born at dusk, on the ninth. In the twilight Friday evening, on the tenth. If there is a holiday on Sunday, on the eleventh; the two days of the New Year on the twelfth. A sick baby one does not circumcise until he gets well.

Halakhah

It is possible that a child is circumcised on his first day. How is this possible? If she gave birth and then converted, he is circumcised on his first day. If she converted and then gave birth, he is circumcised on his eighth day. Jacob from Kefar-Naboraia asked Rabbi Ḥaggai, then if he was born during twilight, should he not be circumcised at twilight? He told him, if I and you were entering the same door, could we make it simultaneous?

Samuel said, if he runs a fever for one hour one waits with him one month. May one feed him with milk-substitute from heave? May one rub him with heave oil? Let us hear from the following: “The uncircumcised and any impure persons may not eat heave; their wives and slaves may eat.” Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The prepuce is counted only from the eighth day onward. It was stated so: For the entire thirty days it is forbidden to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and forbidden to rub him with heave oil. How do you treat the night of the eighth day? Since it was stated: In the night of the eighth day it enters the corral to be tithed, that means that the night of the eighth is treated like the eighth day. And it was stated so: All seven days long one is permitted to feed him with milk-substitute from heave and permitted to rub him with heave oil.

Mishnah

6 The following are the fibers which invalidate a circumcision: the flesh which covers most of the corona; then he could not eat heave. If he was fat one corrects him because of the bad impression. If he circumcised but did not uncover the circumcision it is as if he did not circumcise.

Halakhah

“The following are the fibers which invalidate a circumcision.” Rabbi Avuna in the name of Rav Jeremiah: If it covers most of the height of the corona. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if it covers most of the top of the corona. Rabbi Tebi in the name of Samuel: One checks at the time of an erection.

“If he circumcised but did not uncover the circumcision it is as if he did not circumcise.” It was stated: He is subject to divine extirpation. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: That is to say if there is no time left in the day to correct it. But if there is time left in the day to correct, he corrects without hesitation. It was stated: As long as he is occupied with the circumcision, he may return both to fibers which invalidate the circumcision as also to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Once he has stopped, he may return only to fibers which invalidate the circumcision. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rabbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision. Which statement of Rabbi Yose? That which we had stated there: “Rabbi Yose said, if the first day of Tabernacles falls on a Sabbath and somebody forgot that it was the Sabbath and took the palm branch into the public domain he is not liable since he took it out with permission.” Is it the same for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah? Since Rabbi Joḥanan said, the words of Rabbi Yose imply that even after he has stopped he may return even to fibers that do not invalidate the circumcision, that means the same holds for the knife of circumcision, for a mazzah.

Mishnah

1 Rabbi Eliezer says, one hangs the yeast-sieve on a holiday and one uses one hanging on the Sabbath. But the Sages say, one may not hang a yeast-sieve on a holiday and may not use a hanging one on the Sabbath but one may use a hanging one on a holiday.

Halakhah

“Rabbi Eliezer says, one hangs the yeast-sieve,” etc. It was stated: “Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages did not disagree that one sets up new tents on the Sabbath. Where do they disagree? About extending, for Rabbi Eliezer says one adds on a holiday but one does not add on a Sabbath, but the Sages say, one does not add on a holiday, and it is not necessary to say on a Sabbath.” Do we not deal here with an addition? Rabbi Abbin bar Kahana said, explain it about a new yeast-sieve which he turns into an implement. A fortiori.

The argument of Rabbi Eliezer seems inverted. Since there, where he qualifies it as an implement, you say that it is permitted, here, where he does not qualify it as an implement, not so much more? Rabbi Ḥinena said, Rabbi Eliezer parallels Rabbi Judah, as it was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah: Also they permitted preparations for making food. Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Abba: Following him who permits, only from above. As the following: In the days of Rabbi Judah ben Pazi there was a festive meal in the House of Study. They spread a canopy the day before over four cubits; the next day they were extending it over everything. They were of the opinion that this followed the words of Rabbi Judah ben Pazi. They investigated and found that it was not according to Rabbi Judah ben Pazi’s opinion unless it was spread over most of it. Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He who sets up tents on the Sabbath is liable because of building. Rabbi Zeira said, he only is spreading and folding it on the Sabbath. Rabbi Abba bar Cohen asked Rabbi Yose, what is the rule for a spread over a chest? He told him, since it was spread the day before he is like one who unlocks and locks on the Sabbath.

Rabbi Zeira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters yeast is liable because of selecting. Rabbi Zeira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Jonah both said, at the start we were saying that Rabbi Zeira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina on top, so in filtering wine the wine as at the bottom and the yeast on top; but we were not saying anything. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted, the category of filtering was permitted. The category of selecting was permitted: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot.” Also the category of filtering was permitted, “on a holiday one puts into one which was hanging.” But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rabbi Ḥanina Beroqa said in the name of Rav Judah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve. If you say it is because of sifting, it should be forbidden. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, it does not follow Rabbi Judah, for it was stated in the name of Rabbi Judah, they also permitted preparations for making food. There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

Mishnah

2 One may add water to the yeast to clear it; one may sift wine through sheets or a Egyptian basket. One may break an egg into the sieve of mustard seed, and make honey-wine on the Sabbath. Rabbi Judah says, on the Sabbath in a cup, on a holiday in a pitcher, and during a holiday week in an amphora. Rabbi Zadok says, everything according to the number of guests.

Halakhah

“One may add water to the yeast,” etc. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Judah in the name of Rav: Only he should not make it like a bosom. There is a question about the following: May one turn it over that the bosom is made by itself? Rabbi Mattaniah said, one may turn it on its side on condition not to do it on the Sabbath the way he does it on a weekday.

This is how the Mishnah reads: One separates an egg in the sieve of mustard seed. A lump of mustard seed? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, one squeezes by hand but not with a tool. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai: One may squeeze both by hand and with a tool. Rabbi Joḥanan objected to him, do not the dogs make it so? There came Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: One may squeeze both by hand and with a tool.

“And one makes honey-wine on the Sabbath.” Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Wine and honey and pepper.

Mishnah

3 One does not soak asafoetida in lukewarm water but one may add it to vinegar. One does not soak vetch and does not smooth it, but one may put it into a pot or into a bag. One does not shake straw in a sieve and does not expose it on an elevated place to cause the chaff to fall down, but one may take it in a sieve to put it into a trough.

Halakhah

Rabbi Mana said, so is the Mishnah: But one may put it in vinegar in his presence. Rav Huna said, they taught only lukewarm water; therefore it is permitted in cold water. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai, even in cold water it is forbidden. Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, did they not teach only lukewarm water? But He said to him, did we exert ourselves for nothing

Rav Huna said, one is permitted to drink asa foetida water on the Sabbath. Samuel said, asa foetida in itself is healthy persons’ food. Rav Huna said, he who eats the weight of a zuz from it is in danger and his skin is loosened. Rabbi Abba ate the weight of a zuz from it and jumped in the river.

It was stated: “One does not soak vetch,” because of selecting; “and does not smooth it,” because of threshing. “One does not shake straw in a sieve and does not expose it on an elevated place to cause the chaff to fall,” because of sifting.

Mishnah

4 One cleans up after an animal to be fattened, and one removes it to the sides for one grazing, the words of Rabbi Dosa, but the Sages forbid. One may take from before one animal and put it before another one on the Sabbath.

Halakhah

“One cleans up after an animal to be fattened,” etc. Because what the animal to be fattened leaves over, the grazing one eats. The following is in question: May one take from before one animal and give it before another animal? Is that not the Mishnah, “one may take from before one animal and put it before another on the Sabbath”? The Mishnah is about the same kind; what he asks is about another kind. It was stated, a person may take from before a donkey and put before a cow; from before an animal whose mouth is repelling to an animal whose mouth is nice.

Mishnah

5 Straw on a bed one may not move with his hands but he may move it with his body; if it was animal feed or there was a pillow or a sheet one may move it with his hand. One may open a clothes press in a private home but one may not close it; a washer’s one may not be touched. Rabbi Judah said, if it was open from before the Sabbath he removes the clothes and lets it drop.

Halakhah

“Straw on a bed.” Our Mishnah: if he did not sleep on it yesterday; but if he slept on it yesterday it is like its body. Rabbi Jacob bar Idi said, the earlier generations were asking, may he stir it by his fingertips? Rabbi Yannai said, the balding is bald, the deprived is deprived, pour cold water on the shivering, the house fell on the dweller in it. Rabbi Ḥiyya stated, this is the rule for the poor man.

But was it not stated, “the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir about seals in the ground that one pushes aside, and removes, and unties, and cuts. On the Sabbath one pushes aside but one does not remove nor untie nor cut. For implements on the Sabbath it is permitted; it is not necessary to mention on a holiday.” This implies that they treated the clothes press as if it were in the ground. Rabbi Yose said, the Mishnah said so, “a washer’s one may not be touched.”

Mishnah

1 A person may lift his son with a stone in the latter’s hand, or a basket with a stone in it. One may move impure heave together with pure one or with profane food. Rabbi Judah says, one also may lift demaʿ by 101.

Mishnah

2 An amphora covered by a stone: one tilts it and the stone falls down. If it was between amphoras one lifts it, tilts it and the stone falls down. Coins on a pillow: one shakes the pillow and they fall down. If chicken droppings were on it, one cleans it with a rag. If it was of leather, one pours water on it until it disappears.

Mishnah

3 The House of Hillel say, one removes from the table bones and shells, but the House of Shammai say, one removes the entire table and shakes it. One removes from the table crumbs less than olive size, hair of chick-peas and lentils, since it is animal feed. One cleans with a sponge if it has a leather handle; otherwise one does not clean with it. The Sages say in any case it may be taken on the Sabbath and is impervious to impurity.

Mishnah

1 If an amphora broke, one saves from it food for three meals and tells others: come and save for yourselves; only one may not absorb it in a sponge. One does not squeeze fruits to extract their juice and if it seeped out by itself it is forbidden. Rabbi Judah says, if they are solid food, what comes from them is permitted, but if they are for drinks, what comes from them is forbidden. What flows from itself from honeycombs which he crushed on Friday is forbidden, but Rabbi Eliezer permits it.

Mishnah

2 Everything which was in hot water on Friday one soaks in hot water on the Sabbath but anything which was not in hot water on Friday one rinses in hot water on the Sabbath except for old salted fish and anchovies in salt and Spanish mackerel, for which rinsing is the end of preparation.

Mishnah

3 A person may break open an amphora to eat dried figs from it; only he may not intend to make it into a vessel. One does not drill a hole in the plug of an amphora, the words of Rabbi Judah, but Rabbi Yose permits. One may not drill a hole in its side, and if it has a hole one may not close it with wax because he smears. Rabbi Judah said, a case came before Rabbon Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Arab and he said, I fear that he incurred liability for a purification sacrifice.

Mishnah

4 One may put food in a cistern for preservation, and potable water into bad one to cool, and cold water into hot to warm it. One whose garments became soaked on the road walks in them without worry. If he comes to an outer courtyard he puts them out to dry in the sun but not in public.

Mishnah

5 One who bathes in the waters of a cave or in the waters of Tiberias dries himself even with ten towels but may not bring them in his hand. But ten people dry with one towel their faces, and their hands, and their feet, and bring it in their hands.

Mishnah

6 One anoints and massages the belly but one does not exercise or scratch. One does not go to a mud-bath, nor does one make an emetic on the Sabbath, nor does one stretch a baby, nor set a fracture. If somebody’s hand or foot became dislocated he cannot force it back with cold water but he may wash in his usual way and if this healed him, he was healed.

Mishnah

1 A person may ask from a neighbor wine jugs and oil jugs, only he may not say to him: lend me; and similarly a woman loaves from her neighbor. If that one does not trust him he may leave his toga with him and settle the account after the Sabbath. Similarly, on a Passover eve in Jerusalem which happens on a Sabbath he leaves his toga with him, eats his Passover sacrifice, and settles the account after the holiday.

Mishnah

2 A person counts his guests and his desserts orally but not from a written list. A person may make a lottery with his children and his family on the table on condition that he not make portions large or small, because of gambling. One casts lots on sancta on the holiday but not on portions.

Mishnah

3 A person may not hire workers on the Sabbath and not say to another to hire workers for him. One does not wait for nightfall at the Sabbath boundary to hire workers and to bring produce, but one may wait for nightfall to watch and to bring produce in his hand. Abba Shaul formulated a principle: For anything which I am permitted to talk about I am permitted to wait for nightfall.

Mishnah

4 One waits for nightfall at the Sabbath border to oversee preparations for a wedding or preparations for a burial, to bring a casket and shrouds. If a Gentile brought fifes on the Sabbath, a Jew should not use them for dirges unless they came from a nearby place. If they made for him a casket and dug him a grave a Jew may be buried in it; but if it was made for a Jew he never should be buried in it.

Mishnah

5 One does all that is needed for a corpse, one anoints, and rinses, on condition that none of his limbs be moved. One takes away the pillow under him and lays him on sand so he can wait. One ties the jaw, not to lift it but so that it does not sink. Similarly, if a beam broke one supports it by a bench or the long logs of a bed-frame, not to lift it but so that it does not sink. One does not close the eyelids of a corpse on the Sabbath, nor on a weekday at the moment of death. Anybody who closes the eyes at the moment of death is spilling blood.

Mishnah

1 If somebody is caught on the road when it gets dark, he gives his wallet to a Non-Jew; if no Non-Jew is with him he puts it on the donkey. If he comes to an outer courtyard he removes the implements which may be moved on the Sabbath. For those which may not be moved he unties the rope and the sacks fall down by themselves.

Mishnah

2 One unties bundles of straw for animals and one separates packages but not sheaves. One does not crush green stalks or carob for animals whether small or large; Rabbi Judah permits carob for small animals.

Mishnah

3 One does not stuff a camel, nor force-feed, but puts food in its mouth. One does not stuff calves but gives food into their mouths. One hand-feeds chickens and adds water to bran but does not give water to bees and pigeons of the dovecote, but gives to geese and chicken and for Herodes pigeons.

Mishnah

4 One cuts squash for animals and a cadaver for dogs. Rabbi Judah says, if it was not a cadaver before the Sabbath it is forbidden since it is not prepared.

Mishnah

5 One dissolves vows on the Sabbath and one may ask about vows if it is a need for the Sabbath. One plugs the skylight and measures a rag and a miqweh. It happened in the days of Rabbi Zadok’s father and in the days of Abba Shaul ben Botnit, that they plugged the skylight with a jar and tied a dish to bast to know whether a barrel had a hand-breadth width opening or not. From their words we infer that one plugs, and measures, and ties on the Sabbath.