Beitzah1

1MISHNAH: An egg was laid on a holiday. The House of Shammay say that it may be eaten [The preparation of food is permitted on a holiday (Ex. 12:16), but this is restricted to foodstuffs which were available before the start of the holiday. The House of Shammai hold that an entire chicken is food since slaughter for food is permitted on the holiday, and since everybody agrees that an egg found inside a slaughtered chicken on a holiday is permitted food, there is no reason to consider a laid egg as something different.] , but the House of Hillel say that it may not be eaten [The House of Hillel consider the laid egg as a new entity which did not exist before the holiday and which therefore is muqṣeh and may not be moved.] .

2HALAKHAH: “An egg was laid on a holiday,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? It is prepared in its mother’s body [Since a chicken may be slaughtered as food on a holiday, it was available all the time and therefore its eggs should not be treated differently. For most of Chapter 1 there exist one or two parallel Genizah fragments edited by L. Ginzberg in his Yerushalmi Fragments, pp. 154–172, noted G and G, 302–303 (G).] . What is the reason of the House of Hillel? It is like muqṣeh which dried without him realizing it [While muqṣeh is the technical term for anything which is not available to be moved on the holiday or Sabbath, the original meaning is “cut-up”, viz., a heap of cut-up figs lying on the flat roof to ferment and to be made into fig cakes. During the fermentation process the mass is inedible; therefore it has become the paradigm of anything not currently available for use. Here the original meaning is intended. If the owner had inspected his roof on the eve of the holiday he would have realized that the figs were ready food for the holiday and therefore falling under the category of “prepared food” permitted on Sabbath and holiday. But since at sundown of the holiday he had no knowledge of the situation, the figs were not available to him at the start of the holiday and therefore remain forbidden for the rest of the holiday. Similarly, since the owner of the chicken does not know that the egg (which is completely formed with its hard shell) will be laid on the holiday, since it was not available at the start it cannot become available later.] , and is muqṣeh which dried without him realizing it not forbidden? But was it not stated [Tosephta 1:2, Babli 2b, 6b.] , “if one slaughters a chicken and found eggs inside it, even if they are complete [With shell.] they are permitted”? Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana. One said, its taste when eaten from its inside is not comparable to its taste when eaten from the outside. But the other said, it is not completed for a chick [It cannot be used for hatching a new chick. The Yerushalmi presumes that every egg potentially is either food or material for hatching, disputed by the Babli, 2a.] until it comes outside. What are they with milk [Meat is forbidden to be used with milk. A laid egg may be used with either milk or meat. What is the status of a complete egg found inside a slaughtered chicken?] ? Let us say, if they are connected to blood vessels they are forbidden, otherwise permitted [Cf. Babli 6b.] .

3“Everybody agrees that an egg of which a major part was laid before the start of the holiday may be eaten on the holiday [Tosephta 1:3; in one version in the Babli 7a (Bekhorot 8a) this holds true even if the egg in the meantime had again disappeared into the body of the chicken.] ”. Where do they disagree? If a minor part came out, where the House of Shammai say that it may be eaten, but the House of Hillel say that it may not be eaten [This is a logical consequence of the preceding statement. Since we consider an egg of which more than half is visible as completely laid, an egg of which less that half is visible is not laid at all and therefore is an egg totally laid on the holiday and not food available earlier.] . “ [Tosephta 1:3; Babli 3b,4a, Šabbat 43a. On the holiday (and Sabbath) one may move only things which may be used on the day (except if one needs the place occupied by an unusable implement, when one may clear the place.) Since the egg is neither food nor a usable implement, it cannot be moved.] Just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden to be moved. If one was mixed with a hundred or a thousand, they are all forbidden [In general, if prohibited material is a small minority in permitted material, it may be disregarded. For example, passive non-kosher ingredients in food may be disregarded if they constitute less than 1/60 of the permitted food. But if the prohibition either will disappear by itself (as in the case of an egg laid on the holiday which is permitted food on the next day) or may be removed by some action, no such disregard is permitted; the entire mixture is prohibited until the prohibition disappears.] ”. How? Following him who said, if the preparation is in doubt it is forbidden; but him who said, if the preparation is in doubt it is permitted, here he agrees that it is forbidden. For wind-fall there is a doubt where it fell today or fell yesterday, but here one is forbidden and it is proof for all of them [If fruit is found under a fruit tree on the holiday, there is a doubt whether it is forbidden as fallen on the holiday or whether it is permitted as fallen before the holiday. Therefore if this fruit is put into a basket with many other fruits, there is a doubt whether any of this is forbidden. If we hold that the requirement to use only food available before the holiday is biblical (cf. Ex. 16:23) the wind-fall is forbidden, but if the requirement is rabbinic and traditional, the wind-fall is permitted cf. Babli 24a. There is nothing clearly forbidden and the rule spelled out at the end of the preceding note cannot be applied. But if an egg was laid on the holiday, for the House of Hillel it certainly is forbidden and therefore the rule which forbids the mixture for the day can be applied.] .

4Others say in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: It may be eaten together with its mother [Even a follower of the House of Hillel may eat the egg laid on the holiday if he also eats its mother since then the egg was food at the start of the holiday (Note 6).] . [What means, “it may be eaten together with its mother”?] [Corrector’s addition, justified by G.] If its mother was prepared for slaughter [This is an objection to R. Eliezer’s statement. If the chicken is raised to produce eggs, it is not food and therefore not prepared for the holiday, nor can be its egg before it is laid.] . But are not all chickens prepared for slaughter [Since a chicken which does not lay eggs anymore also is eaten, every chicken is potential food.] ? Rebbi Abba said, it may be eaten based on its mother’s preparation [Even a follower of the House of Hillel may eat the egg laid by a chicken raised for its meat. Babli 2a.] .

5A calf born on a holiday is permitted since it permits itself by slaughter [An unborn calf inside its mother does not need separate slaughter; its mother’s slaughter also permits the calf which is considered part of its mother’s body. But once it is born, it must be slaughtered to become food. Since the birth on the holiday introduces the duty of slaughtering, an action to satisfy this duty removes also the rabbinic prohibition of moving the animal.] . Rebbi Ze`ira asked, in that case an animal kept outside should be permitted since it permits itself by slaughter [A domestic animal kept all year outside, far from permanent human dwellings, may not be cared for on the holiday (Mishnah 5:7), therefore certainly it is not prepared to be food of the holiday. This seems to contradict the earlier statement.] , deer should be permitted since it permits itself by slaughter [Since one is prohibited from catching deer, it cannot possibly be holiday food unless caught before the holiday.] . Rebbi Ze`ira came back and said, a calf is fully formed the day before, but here [In the case of the chicken egg.] it was born on the day it was fully formed. Rebbi Abba said, this follows him who said that an animal gives birth after split months; but what is for him who said, an animal gives birth after a fixed number of months [Babli Bekhorot 21a, a disagreement whether cattle gives birth after a full 9 months or not. If the number of days of gestation is not fixed, the owner of the pregnant animal cannot have the intention to use the unborn calf as food on the holiday since he could not know the prospective date of birth.] ? Think of it, that he knew when a male had mounted it [In this case it might be possible to compute the day of birth in advance and the calf would be food if that day is a holiday.] . A pigeon chick born on a holiday is permitted since it permits itself by slaughter [An egg is permitted only if no chick developed. A fully formed chick in an egg still is not considered a chick but a forbidden egg; even if a human takes away the shell and slaughters the chick it is the slaughter of an egg which cannot possibly permit any food which was forbidden.] ; did we not state, an egg which had started to develop, and chicks which do not yet have wings are forbidden as abomination, but one does not whip because of carcass meat? And Rebbi Ḥaggai said, even if he slaughtered them [An egg is permitted only if no chick developed. A fully formed chick in an egg still is not considered a chick but a forbidden egg; even if a human takes away the shell and slaughters the chick it is the slaughter of an egg which cannot possibly permit any food which was forbidden.] . Rebbi Abun said, explain it about those born with wings [For these the argument of Note 21 applies.] .

6Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina (asked) [Delete with G,G.] : [Babli 7a, Bekhorot 8a.] Any which has sexual relations during daytime gives birth during daytime, during nighttime gives birth during nighttime. They objected, does a chicken not have sexual relations only during daytime and it gives birth both during daytime and nighttime [Denied by the Babli 7a which holds that chicken eggs are laid only during daytime and therefore an egg found in the nest at early dawn of a holiday is permitted as laid the day before.] ? Rebbi Abun said, there is a difference, since it gives birth without a male [It may lay several eggs from one fertilization by a male.] . Rebbi Ze`ira [In both Genizah texts, Ze`ur (distinct from Ze`urah = Ze`ira).] in the name of Giddul: A calf born from a ṭerefa [An animal which cannot be expected to live for another 12 month; practically an animal injured or missing a limb or organ enumerated in Ḥulin Chapter 3. The meat from such an animal is biblically prohibited.] on a holiday is permitted; it has the status of something prepared [As food for the holiday. The calf is permitted food, the mother is not. Before the birth the calf was forbidden as ṭerefa, now it is permitted and permits itself by slaughter.] hidden in something not prepared.

7[A slightly corrupt parallel to this text is in Avodah zarah 2:7, Notes 293–302.] Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: At first they were saying, one curdles [To make cheese. Babli Ḥulin 116a.] neither with the stomach content of the carcass [An animal which was not slaughtered following the rules of ritual slaughter. whose flesh therefore is forbidden as meat.] nor with the stomach contents of the Gentile [“Gentile’s stomach content” naturally means “stomach content of animal slaughtered by a Gentile.”] . They changed to say, one curdles with the stomach content of the carcass but not with the stomach contents of the Gentile. Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, Samuel bar Abba asked: Does this follow Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said, the thoughts of the Non-Jew are about pagan worship [Does this follow R. Eliezer (whom practice does not follow in general) since it treats Gentile rennet as more problematic than the one derived from a carcass? Since here practice is said to follow R. Eliezer, the tradition seems questionable; one has to search for parallel traditions either to confirm or to reject.] ? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Originally, they said, one does curdle neither with carcass stomach contents nor with Gentile’s stomach contents. They changed to say, one does curdle with carcass stomach contents and with Gentile’s stomach contents. Rebbi Yose said, the language of a baraita supports Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba [The first version which keeps the prohibition of rennet from Gentile sources.] : Stomach contents of a Gentile or a carcass is forbidden following the original teaching. The stomach contents of a qualified animal which suckled from a ṭerefa [An animal which cannot be expected to live for another 12 month; practically an animal injured or missing a limb or organ enumerated in Ḥulin Chapter 3. The meat from such an animal is biblically prohibited.] are forbidden following the former teaching, and the stomach contents of a ṭerefa which suckled from a qualified one are permitted following the later teaching. And even if the House of Shammai would argue like the House of Hillel in the first teaching, an egg is a growth of its body [This now connects the discussion with the Mishnah here. The problem is to understand the position of the House of Hillel since the preparation of food is permitted on a holiday (Ex. 12:16). According to the Babli and one opinion in the Yerushalmi the prohibition applies only to eggs laid by chickens raised to produce eggs. Then the mother was not food at the start of the holiday. While the egg is food according to everybody, for the House of Hillel it cannot change its character from non-food to food on the holiday. Then the question is raised why milk which is prohibited as food before being ingested by a ruminant becomes permitted by the animal’s stomach. In this question, the revised ruling in matters of rennet would agree with the stance of the House of Shammai. But the answer is that the two cases cannot be compared; the stomach contents of an animal never were part of the animal and do not have the latter’s status.] ; the contents of the stomach come from the outside. It parallels what Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It happened to the sons of Jehudah ben Shamuai that wolves tore more than 300 of their flock. The case came before the Sages who permitted their stomach contents [T he latter teaching which permits rennet from animals prohibited as meat is confirmed by a ruling in an actual case.] . They said, an egg is a growth of its body; the contents of the stomach come from the outside.

8“If it was laid on the holiday it may be eaten on the Sabbath, on the Sabbath it may be eaten on the holiday [An egg laid on a holiday which is a Friday may be eaten on the following Sabbath; and an egg laid on a Sabbath may be eaten on a holiday which is on the following Sunday.] . Rebbi Jehudah said in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, this is the disagreement. The house of Shammai say that it may be eaten, but the House of Hillel say that it may not be eaten [Tosephta 1:3, Babli 4a. According to R. Eliezer, the House of Hillel hold that the prohibition of newly available food on Sabbath and holiday is biblical; therefore since the egg was unavailable one moment before the start of the Sabbath it is unavailable on the Sabbath. For the anonymous majority and the House of Shammai the prohibition is rabbinical; since holiday and Sabbath represent two different kinds of holiness, the prohibition on one day has no influence on the other day.] .” Rebbi Ḥanina instructed the Sepphoreans about spontaneous growth of mustard [In the Sabbatical year, as exception to R. Simeon’s rule that all spontaneous growth of cultivated plants are forbidden in the Sabbatical.] and about the egg following Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Joḥanan came and preached to them following the rabbis here and the rabbis there [That spontaneous growth of mustard is forbidden as object of trade, and that an egg laid on the holiday was permitted on the Sabbath. From here on to the end of the next paragraph the text also is in Ševi`it 9:1 (Notes 22–30,שׁ).] . Rebbi Abba bar Zemina in the name of Rebbi Joṣadaq: Because of these two things did Rebbi Joḥanan descend from Sepphoris to Tiberias. He said, why did you bring me this old man, what I am permitting he prohibits, what I am prohibiting he permits [The historicity of this remark is doubtful since R. Joḥanan was R. Ḥanina’s student in Sepphoris (at least in Aggadah). It is reasonable to accept the fact that R. Joḥanan went to Tiberias to become there Chief Rabbi.] . Rebbi Abba said, there came a case before Rebbi Yasa and he wanted to act following Rebbi Joḥanan but when he heard that Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina disagreed he refrained.

9[This paragraph also is copied in Eruvin 3, Notes 169–176, where the readings of Beṣah and Ševi`it are compared.] Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday [This refers to Mishnah Eruvin 3:9 where it is stated that if a holiday precedes or follows a Sabbath one may make two eruvin to move one’s Sabbath domain in two different directions for the two days. This clearly presupposes that the restriction of one’s Sabbath domain to 2’000 cubits outside of town is rabbinical. (It is agreed that the limit of 12 mil, 3 parasang, is biblical.) In the case here, it is agreed that the remainders of spent fuel are muqṣeh on the Sabbath, when lighting a fire was prohibited. If this is a biblical prohibition then it is muqṣeh also on the holiday which is on Sunday, but if it is rabbinic then it will be permitted on the holiday, when lighting a fire is permitted.] ? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg [Since the dispute between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai was described earlier as whether a chicken automatically is food on a holiday or only if it was raised for its meat, not for producing eggs.] ? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical [At least for the House of Hillel, cf. Note 47.] . They said in the name of four Elders [According to the Babli Eruvin 38b the Elders are Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, R. Ismael ben R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa, R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon, and R. Yose ben R. Jehudah. In Tosephta Eruvin 4:2 the statement is R. Meïr’s.] : If somebody’s eruv was eaten on the first <day> he is like the people of his town on the second <day> [Essentially stated in Mishnah Eruvin 3:9.] . Rav Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Practice follows the four Elders [Babli Eruvin 38b.] . Rav Ḥisda asked: the argument of Rav seems to be inverted. There, he makes it two sanctities, but here he makes it one sanctity. Because they disagreed: May the remainders of a wick, a fire, or oil that burned out on the Sabbath be lit on the holiday? Rav and Rebbi Ḥanina both say it is forbidden, but Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yudan, is it the reverse regarding an egg? He said to him, since the rabbis compare it, it means that the two cases are identical [Instead of the last four sentences the source G simply states that one repeats from the start of the paragraph. Rav Ḥisda’s question really is not answered. The Babli gives several tentative explanations of Rav’s position. The one consistent with the Yerushalmi is that only weekdays can prepare for holidays but the Sabbath cannot prepare for a holiday. Since the reason for Rav’s ruling in the case of fuel is not based on the number of sanctities involved, his decisions are consistent.] .

10Everybody agrees that wind-fall is forbidden [Fruit that fell from its tree on a holiday.] . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze`ira: What is the difference between wind-fall and eggs? Is wind-fall on its mother [The tree. Since fruit hanging on a tree must be harvested before it can be moved, it is biblically forbidden.] not forbidden, but are eggs in their mother not permitted? Then if it was laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday, if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath [If the egg only is permitted because it may be eaten in its mother, on a Sabbath when slaughter is prohibited the egg should be prohibited according to everybody if the holiday was on a Friday.] ! He answered him, is that so? Is it not enough that you were restrictive about it that if it was laid on the holiday it may not be eaten on the holiday that you want to be more restrictive that if laid on the holiday it should not be eaten on the Sabbath, if laid on the Sabbath it should not be eaten on the holiday [Since we had concluded earlier that also for the House of Hillel it is a matter of preparation, not harvest or a similar biblical injunction, there is no reason to pile rabbinic restrictions on rabbinic restrictions.] ? Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what is the status of decorations of a sukkah [Edible decorations. Since the sukkah may not be demolished during the week of Tabernacles, any decorations are part of the sukkah and may not be taken. The question is about the Eighth Day which is a holiday but not part of Tabernacles and not a time when the sukkah is used. Cf. Šabbat 3, Note 170.] ? Rebbi Jeremiah turned around and said, all seven <days> they are insignificant in the sukkah, afterwards they are prepared [This is a position denied by R. Jeremiah in Šabbat 3 but accepted by R. Yose’s brother. After the holiday the decorations are simply fruits hanging on the wall which can be taken at any moment.] . Rebbi Yose said, all seven <days> the holiness of (seven) [sukkah falls] [The best readings are those of the Genizah texts, “the holiness of sukkah is”.] on them, afterwards the holiness of the holiday falls on them. What did he come to question? If the holiday falls on a Friday according to him who says, they are two kinds of holiness [Since the holiness of the sukkah is biblical, and so is the holiness of holiday, it is consistent to extend the holiness of the decorations to the holiday, but it is not necessary to extend it to a following Sabbath.] .

11MISHNAH: The House of Shammay say that sour dough {causes liability} by the size of an olive and leavened matter by the size of a date [This refers to the prohibition of leavened matter on Passover. While the smallest amount of leavened matter is forbidden, only the possession of a minimal amount triggers the liability for a purification sacrifice if found to be unintentional. The House of Shammai hold that this amount is smaller for actively leavening material than for passive leavened material, whereas the House of Hillel do not differentiate between the two. It will be stated in Halakhah 2 that the disagreement only refers to possession; in matters of eating there is no disagreement. The reason this disagreement is mentioned here is that in the first case the House of Shammai is more lenient than the House of Hillel; the same is true in the second case.] , but the House of Hillel say that both are by the size of an olive.

12HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2] [Corrector’s addition, to be deleted. He designated the discussion of the second part of Mishnah 1 as separate Halakhah. Therefore his count of Halakhot in this Chapter deviates systematically from the scribe’s.] . Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive [Even the House of Shammai agree that eating leavened matter in the volume of an olive on Passover creates liability.] . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive [This statement refers only to the opinion of the House of Hillel. While leavened matter is forbidden on Passover in the most minute amount, liability is created only by the volume of an olive, whether active leavening or passive leavened matter.] . Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive [If fruit is found under a fruit tree on the holiday, there is a doubt whether it is forbidden as fallen on the holiday or whether it is permitted as fallen before the holiday. Therefore if this fruit is put into a basket with many other fruits, there is a doubt whether any of this is forbidden. If we hold that the requirement to use only food available before the holiday is biblical (cf. Ex. 16:23) the wind-fall is forbidden, but if the requirement is rabbinic and traditional, the wind-fall is permitted cf. Babli 24a. There is nothing clearly forbidden and the rule spelled out at the end of the preceding note cannot be applied. But if an egg was laid on the holiday, for the House of Hillel it certainly is forbidden and therefore the rule which forbids the mixture for the day can be applied.] , for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah” [If there were different standards for leavening and leavened matter, Mishnah Keritut 1:1 which enumerates the 36 transgressions causing extirpation should have enumerated them separately and arrived at a total of 37.] .

13MISHNAH: If somebody slaughtered a wild animal or a bird [Whose blood has to be covered by dust, Lev. 17:13.] on the holiday, the House of Shammai say that he shall dig with a picket [Even though digging is an activity forbidden on the holiday, since slaughter for food is permitted without restriction there is biblical authorization to provide the `necessary dust. The House of Hillel agree that by biblical standards this is true; they say that rabbinically one has to refrain from digging if possible.] and cover, but the House of Hillel say that he should not slaughter unless he had dust prepared. But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, <and> that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared [The ashes produced from the firewood in the stove are qualified as dust to cover the blood of birds. Therefore they are useful for activities permitted on the holiday and cannot be muqṣeh. In this context, “prepared” means “available for the preparation of food on the holiday.”] .

14HALAKHAH: [This paragraph is from Šabbat 7, Notes 239–254.] Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday [It is presumed that carcass meat, which is forbidden as human food, is not prepared as animal feed. For R. Joḥanan (Babli 12b) since making fire and cooking is permitted for preparing food on the holiday (Ex. 12:16) it is permitted for any purpose.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food [He disputes that cooking be permitted for anything that is not food.] . Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday [This refers to Mishnah 1:2. Now digging is a derivative of ploughing, therefore some kind of ploughing is biblically permitted on a holiday.] . Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted [Since no plough is authorized, the work is not professional and, since the intent is not to prepare the soil for agriculture, the prohibition is rabbinical; the Houses of Shammai and Hillel do not disagree about the interpretation of a biblical commandment.] . Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this [Both the Houses of Shammai and of Hillel do permit to use a professional tool; they must hold that the intent determines liability.] is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter [There is liability only if the prohibited action is the object of his intent, not a by-product. Cf. Šabbat 2, Note 19.] . Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23 [Since in this interpretation both Houses agree that the digging does not create liability and the biblical commandment to cover the blood overrides the rabbinic “fence around the law”.] ? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same [Mishnah 1:2 is anonymous and therefore presumed to be R. Meïr’s. If it implies the position of R. Simeon then both must agree in this matter. The opponent of R. Simeon in this matter is Rebbi Jehudah, student of his father R. Ilai, who was a student of the Shammaite R. Eliezer. It is intrinsically unlikely that the House of Shammai should accept what later was formulated by R. Simeon.] . But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same [Šabbat 2, Note 19. Babli Šabbat 31b.] ? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same [Then we should hold that this is their (direct or indirect) teacher R. Aqiba’s position and it is difficult to fathom who would disagree; but we see that this opinion is not generally accepted in tannaitic sources.] ? 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 was weeding and using the uprooted weeds as fodder. This is forbidden on a holiday as it is forbidden on the Sabbath.] he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested [In the Babli, these rabbis are identified with R. Jehudah.] . Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish [A pickled herring. Since the preparation of food is permitted on a holiday, this sentence and the next are copied in error from Šabbat, since the activities are only forbidden on Šabbat. Babli Šabbat 145a.] , if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce [This is all one Šabbat liability.] .

15Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this [If the Mishnah was to be understood that ashes from the cooking stove may be used without restriction on the holiday, it should have indicated that it may be used for some mundane action. Since the remark about the ashes is appended to the discussion of a religious act, one infers that it may be used for religious acts only.] implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment [The ל prefixed by the corrector to the word מצוה is standard Babli syntax; as the following text shows clearly it has to be deleted.] . Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it [Ashes which existed before the holiday may be designated before the holiday for any use intended on the holiday.] . But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement) [Scribe’s text deleted by the corrector who did not understand the text. As noted already by Qorban ha`Edah, this has to be undeleted.] and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy [The blood of kosher wild animals has to be covered and all their fat may be consumed. The blood of domesticated kosher animals is not covered and their visceral fat is forbidden as food. Mishnah Bikkurim2:8–9 states that the Koy is possibly a wild animal or possibly a domesticated animal; therefore his blood has to be covered but its fat may not be eaten. It may not be slaughtered on the holiday; if slaughtered anyhow its blood may not be covered on the holiday. In Bikkurim2:7 (Note 154) R. Eleazar says the Koy is the result of the mating of a he-goat with a hind or a stag mating with a she-goat; but the rabbis say, it is a separate kind and the Sages could not determine its classification. In the Babli 8b this is a declarative sentence, not an interrogation.] ? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy [And infer that its fat is permitted since its blood is covered.] , people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover [A possible (not prosecutable) holiday violation. Babli 8a.] . And it was stated so [Tosephta 1:5.] : “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts [The restrictions on using building materials to cover blood or excrement are rabbinic in nature.] .

16It was stated [Tosephta 1:5, Ḥulin6:1; Babli 8a, Ḥulin 84b.] : “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday [If a baby is born on a Sabbath it is circumcised the next Sabbath. If he is born during twilight, when it was not clear on which calendar date the birth actually was, then it cannot be circumcised before the eighth day counting from the second possible date. If that should be a holiday, the circumcision has to be delayed for another day since violating the holiday for what may be a ninth, not an eighth, day would be desecrating the holiday. Mishnah Šabbat 19:5.] , then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday [Since according to Mishnah Megillah 1:8 the only activity forbidden on the Sabbath and permitted on a holiday is the preparation of food. Covering the blood is an activity occurring after what is a preparation of food, and only preparations are permitted.] . But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath [Since slaughter is forbidden on the Sabbath, covering the blood cannot occur and the premise of the argument is vacuous.] ? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person [If freshly cooked meat is prescribed by a competent medical authority to a dangerously sick person, it has to be provided on the Sabbath. The obligation to violate the Sabbath extends to slaughter but not to covering the blood.] . They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday [Since outside the Temple the shofar is not blown on a Sabbath (Mishnah Roš Haššanah 4:1), but on the holiday falling on a weekday it is blown everywhere even when it is not known whether the 1 of Tishre is the 30 or the 31 of Elul.] . What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow104 [Since on New Year’s Day the blowing is a biblical obligation, it certainly is permitted on that day. On a workday one may blow anyhow.] . Rebbi Ḥanina [With the Genizah sources, read “Ḥananiah” the late Amora, for Ḥanina, the early one.] in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite [Greek ̓ανδρόγυνος “man-woman”, a person having both male and female sex organs. He is considered a probable male and therefore probably required to hear the shofar sound; therefore he may perform the blowing for similar probable males.] who blew. And it was stated so [Roš Haššanah Tosephta 2:5, Babli 29a.] : “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.] [Corrector’s addition, is found in the Tosephta text but not in the Genizah sources; to be deleted.] The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind [The person with neither male nor female sex characteristics may be a male or a female. As a female he would not be obliged by a religious obligation to be performed at a set time; therefore his blowing cannot free even another sexless person since the blower might be a genetic female and the hearer a genetic male.] .” Rebbi Yose [The late Amora.] asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin] [The corrector’s “Abbin” is a distortion of the text. The scribe’s “Abbaye” is confirmed by a Genizah source. While in old and modern lists of Amoraim no Galilean “R. Abbaye” is listed, he appears as an early Amora in Roš Haššanah 1:10, Note 321, not to be confused with the Babylonian Abbaye who never has a title.] said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower [He is the person usually known as Ben Qappara.] found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night [This argument does not make any sense. Since the text is confirmed by the Genizah sources, the loss of a “not” must have happened at a very early stage of transmission. One must read: “in a case of certainty it does not push aside holiday night”, since circumcision is prescribed for the day (Lev.12:3).] , you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday [This is not a proof but a possibility, and does not exclude an opposite opinion.] . This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori [Since R. Aḥa asserts that the hermaphrodite has the right to blow, he must hold that if such a person comes to ask whether he may blow for others, the answer must be positive. But since R. Yose the Amora questions whether the argument about the hermaphrodite can be used against R. Yose the Tanna, he must hold that the Tosephta does not forbid him to blow but does not authorized it a priori.] .

17“But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared [The ashes produced from the firewood in the stove are qualified as dust to cover the blood of birds. Therefore they are useful for activities permitted on the holiday and cannot be muqṣeh. In this context, “prepared” means “available for the preparation of food on the holiday.”] .” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday [Since the wood has been turned into ashes on the holiday, this is non-food material in a state different from what it was at the start of the holiday and therefore is muqṣeh.] , if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover [Since muqṣeh is a rabbinic prohibition but digging a biblical violation, it is better to disregard the rabbinic prohibition even though there is biblical permission to disregard the biblical prohibition. (For muqṣeh as rabbinic institution cf. Introduction to Tractates Šabbat and `Eruvin, p. 3, Note 4.)] . The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition [And therefore one may dig to obtain dust to cover the blood.] . This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side [The dispute between RR. Jonah and Yose is also in Ḥallah2:1, Note 10. It is not mentioned in the Babli (which nevertheless holds that the principle does not apply to holidays since the rules of holidays are both positive commandments and prohibitions.)] . Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up [He must agree that if slaughter is biblically permitted on a holiday, with the consumption of meat a positive commandment, there can be no biblical prohibition to deal with all consequences of the slaughter.] . Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what [The monkey formed a bowl out of clay on the holiday. If a human made the bowl it clearly would have been muqṣeh, and also forbidden as the result of biblically forbidden work. But the monkey is not a human.] ? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira [In one of the Genizah sources this is a purely Babylonian dispute involving a Rav Ze`ura.] and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge [While muqṣeh is the technical term for anything which is not available to be moved on the holiday or Sabbath, the original meaning is “cut-up”, viz., a heap of cut-up figs lying on the flat roof to ferment and to be made into fig cakes. During the fermentation process the mass is inedible; therefore it has become the paradigm of anything not currently available for use. Here the original meaning is intended. If the owner had inspected his roof on the eve of the holiday he would have realized that the figs were ready food for the holiday and therefore falling under the category of “prepared food” permitted on Sabbath and holiday. But since at sundown of the holiday he had no knowledge of the situation, the figs were not available to him at the start of the holiday and therefore remain forbidden for the rest of the holiday. Similarly, since the owner of the chicken does not know that the egg (which is completely formed with its hard shell) will be laid on the holiday, since it was not available at the start it cannot become available later.] . For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously [“Putting in order” means separating heave and tithes, to make the harvest totally profane and generally usable. This is a mental act not dependent of material action, rabbinically prohibited on a holiday but valid.] . For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place [The hole created by the monkey could be considered as not-existent before the holiday. But the prohibition of newly created things cannot apply to soil.] ? Would we say that soil may not be used?

18MISHNAH: [4]: The House of Shammai say, one does not move the ladder [A ladder used only to service dovecotes.] from dovecote to dovecote, but one may bend it [One may move it from one opening in the dovecote to another by keeping the top of the ladder in contact with the dovecote.] from window to window; and the House of Hillel permit it [While the ladder is necessary to use the dovecote it is not part of the building and taking the ladder away from one is not demolishing part of the building.] . The House of Shammai say, one may not take [On the holiday one may not take a pigeon to slaughter as food unless he took the bird in his hand and reserved it for that purpose before the start of the holiday. But for the House of Hillel a timely declaration of intent is enough.] unless one had moved when it was still daylight, but the House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.

19HALAKHAH: Jehudah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya [A son of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. His twin sons, Jehudah and Ḥizqiah, never held a rabbinic title and never served as rabbis of one place, but made it their business to teach Torah at places not served by the rabbinical establishment.] went out. They asked him, what are the rules for a ladder to the upper floor? He told them, it is permitted [To move it on the holiday.] . When he returned to his father, he asked him, what case came to your hands? He said, I permitted them the ladder to the upper floor. He appointed his Tanna before him, who stated [Tosephta 1:8.] , “when was this said, about a ladder for a dovecote. But a ladder for the upper floor is forbidden.” What is the difference between a ladder for a dovecote and a ladder for the upper floor? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a ladder for a dovecote if he had used it the day before for work it would be weak; a ladder for the upper floor may be used for work the day before [The ladder of the dovecote, because it is intended to be moved from one opening to another, is built as light as possible; moving it is no exertion. But the ladder used to access the upper floor, or the roof from the upper floor, essentially is part of the building and is made as heavy as possible. The ladder for the dovecote cannot be used for heavy work without danger that it might break.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on the ladder for a dovecote he may stand and use it for his purpose; on the ladder for the upper floor he may not stand and use it for his purpose [Since the ladder for the dovecote is so flimsy, anybody who sees him standing on the ladder knows that he does so for a use permitted on the holiday, to take some pigeons as food. But if he is seen moving the heavy ladder in the building to some other place, people will suspect him of using the ladder for work forbidden on the holiday.] . A ladder for a dovecote even if it is used to climb to the upper floor; a ladder for the upper floor even if it used to climb to the dovecote [A flimsy ladder may be moved everywhere, a sturdy one nowhere.] .

20“The House of Shammai say, one may not take [On the holiday one may not take a pigeon to slaughter as food unless he took the bird in his hand and reserved it for that purpose before the start of the holiday. But for the House of Hillel a timely declaration of intent is enough.] unless one had moved when it was still daylight.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted, as we have stated there [Mishnah 4:7.] : “In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, a person stands near the drying figs Friday afternoon in a Sabbatical year [Since produce is ownerless in the Sabbatical year, no tithes do apply. The same statement would apply in a regular year if tithes had been given from the drying figs. But since the obligation of tithes applies only to produce ready to be used, fig cakes (and raisins) usually are tithed only if they are fully dry. Since no tithes are due, a declaration of intent is all that is needed to make the food usable on Sabbath or holiday; no physical action is required.] and says, from here I shall eat tomorrow.” Is Rebbi Eliezer not a Shammaite [And therefore his statement should be logically consistent with the Mishnah of the House of Shammai. A parallel to this paragraph is in Halakhah 4:7.] ? One is restrictive if living things are involved.

21“The House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.” The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted, as we have stated there [Mishnah 4:7.] : “But the Sages say, only if he delineates and says, from here to there;” and here they are saying so? Still they hold that one is restrictive if living things are involved [While for fig cake the delineation of the heap from which one may take on the holiday is enough, for living birds one requires a declaration which individual birds are selected for the holiday.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Levi was knocking on his dovecote and saying, my dovecote shall provide me tomorrow [Levi (ben Sisi) holds that for the House of Hillel the entire dovecote is selected, one does not need separate identification of the birds and Mishnaiot 1:3 and 4:7 are totally parallel. Cf. Halakhah 4:7.] .

22MISHNAH: If he prepared [This Mishnah is a continuation of the preceding one. If he designated certain pigeons but the ones available clearly are different, the new birds are muqṣeh.] black ones and found white ones, white ones and found black ones, two and found three, they are forbidden [If he designated two and found three, if the third is not clearly distinct from the other two it is impossible to know which is available and which is not.] . Three and found two, they are permitted [We argue that one left, not that all three left and two new ones took up residence there.] . Inside the nest and he found outside the nest they are forbidden, but if there are no others around they are permitted [If the designated birds were chicks unable to fly and only these chicks were around, it does not matter where they are found in the neighborhood of the dovecote, even if other dovecotes are not too far away.] .

23HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s [The statement that if three chicks are selected but only two found, that we presume that one flew away, but not that all three flew away and these are new ones.] , as it was stated [Tosephta Ma`aser Šeni 5:7, Babli 10b. The entire paragraph is in Ma`aser Šeni 4:9 (Notes 160–166) with the quotes changed as appropriate.] : “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away] [The corrector’s text is the Babli’s and the Tosephta’s; it should be deleted. The scribe’s text in parentheses is confirmed by Gand the parallel in Ma`aser Šeni.] , the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane. [Rebbi holds that if a smaller amount is found it is the remainder of the original dedicated amount. The Sages hold that if money was set aside for Second Tithe and the exact amount was not recovered, it is different money and never dedicated. They must hold that if three chicks were selected but only two found, these are forbidden as never selected.] ” There, we have stated [Mishnah Ma`aser Šeni 4:12 (Note 146).] : “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated [Tosephta Ma`aser Šeni 5:7, Babli 10b. The entire paragraph is in Ma`aser Šeni 4:9 (Notes 160–166) with the quotes changed as appropriate.] : “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly [Babli 10b, as final opinion. In this opinion, the two cases are not comparable.] . But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs [If on the eve of the holiday he found a number of eggs and instead of taking them away he declared them food for the holiday, but then the next morning he found a different number.] ? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it [This would be a different reason to find the two cases not comparable.] . Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe [While the two cases are not comparable, they follow parallel rules.] .

24Rebbi Yudan said, this [Discussion of the statement in the Mishnah that if chicks are forbidden who could not fly when designated in the dovecote and then found in front if the dovecote.] is only if there were there two broods. But if only one brood is there it does not apply [If there is no probability that these may be from another place.] . But did we not state, “if there are no others around they are permitted” [Is not R. Yudan’s statement that of the Mishnah?] ? [Rebbi Yose bar Abun said,] [The corrector’s additions in parentheses are without bases in the sources and have to be deleted.] if there only is a single chick available [One might interpret the Mishnah as permitting the use only if there is only one chick and the identity is guaranteed. But following R. Yudan it is sufficient if there is only one brood, even if only part of the chicks are designated as food. Differently in the Babli 11a.] . [Only one brood of black ones.] [The corrector’s additions in parentheses are without bases in the sources and have to be deleted.]

25[While this text belongs here it also is found in Šabbat 12, Notes 39–44.] Samuel said, anybody who tightly closes the shutters [Greek θυρίς “shield, armor”.] on the holiday is liable because of building. This is difficult. Something which if it was done on the Sabbath makes him liable for a purification sacrifice [Following Samuel.] the House of Hillel permit to restore [On the holiday.] ? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi 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. Rebbi Aḥa said, he may put them back on condition that he not restore completely [Then the work is not professional and comparable to writing with the back of one’s hand.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if there is no door there. But if there is a door he uses the door [If customers can have access to the store without the owner removing the shutters, the House of Hillel will agree that the emergency permit is not valid.] .

26MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that one may not take the pestle [Or any other implement whose common use is not for the preparation of food.] to cut meat on it, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai say that one may not give the hide to be trampled on [Hides of animals slaughtered as food on the holiday are raw material for the manufacture of leather. The House of Shammai hold that hides stripped of all the meat are industrial material and muqṣeh on the holiday. The House of Hillel hold that (almost) nothing becomes muqṣeh it it was not so at the start of the holiday. In this version of the Mishnah the hides may not be brought to the workplace.] nor lift it [Or otherwise move them while muqṣeh.] unless meat was left on it, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai say that one may not remove the shutters [Grocery stores usually were shuttered by iron plated movable on hinges; opening the store meant turning the shutters into horizontal sale platforms. Since the grocer may give on credit spices or other food items to housewives whose supply did run out on the holiday, the House of Hillel encourage this by letting the grocer lock his store on the holiday. In the Babli, the independent Mishnah mss., and as quote in G,the sentence about the shutters is first in the Mishnah. Since this sentence is discussed first in the Halakhah, it seems clear that the order of the items in the Mishnah of the editio princeps, which is not from the ms., is an aberration.] but the House of Hillel permit even to return them.

27HALAKHAH: [“The House of Shammai say that one may not take the pestle [Or any other implement whose common use is not for the preparation of food.] to cut meat on it, but the House of Hillel permit.”] Therefore, not to cut meat on it is forbidden [Work tools may be used on the holiday only for preparation of food; otherwise they remain muqṣeh.] . This is what [The remainder of the text here is from Šabbat 17, Notes 48–50. R. Nehemiah states there that while the general rule is that implements may be moved and used on Sabbath and holiday, tools of trade may be used only for a direct need of the day.] Rebbi (Abba,) [Unjustified deletion by the corrector; the name is confirmed by both parallel sources.] Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav said: The Sages agree with Rebbi 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 [The items mentioned all belong to the wine press and represent considerable investment. The mace is used to mash grapes on the plank put over the vat in the wine press.] .

28[“The House of Shammai say that one may not give the hide.”] They agree that one may not scrape it [Hide which becomes available on the holiday may not be scraped clean from meat fibers; this would be professional preparation for tanning.] . Where do we hold? If it is connected to it, it is part of its body [When the House of Shammai ask that a piece of meat be on the hide, they could not mean that the meat be still fully connected to the hide since then their statement would be obvious.] . If separated, [This statement is from Šabbat 16, Notes 79–80.] it parallels what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Ḥinena from Cartagena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: On a saddle bag [Greek δισάκκιον. Literally “double bag”.] full of coins one puts a loaf and may move it [While the saddle bag is muqṣeh,anything muqṣeh may be moved if it serves as a basis for something which may be moved. Babli Šabbat 142b.] . As the following: an Antiochene cooking vessel fell on Rebbi Jeremiah on the Sabbath; they thought about it [Since cooking is forbidden on the Sabbath, a cooking vessel may not be moved unless the intention is for some use which is legitimate on the Sabbath.] and lifted it. Not that practice follows Rebbi Hoshaia but that Rebbi Jeremiah should not be endangered. They agree that one may not salt it. It was stated: but he might salt meat on it to roast [Salting the hide is the first step in the tanning process; as such it is forbidden on the holiday. But since cooking is permitted, the hide may be used as table on which meat is salted before it is roasted. Babli 11a.] . The colleagues in the name of Rav: A person may salt a large quantity even though he will be able to eat form it only a small quantity. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: One salts cunningly, and salts cunningly; he salts here and salts there until he salted everything [The cunning is that one spreads out the salting process and moves from place to place on the hide until every place has been salted. This is an approved circumvention of the holiday rules to encourage people to eat meat on the holiday, which in absence of refrigeration has to be fresh. Babli 11b.] .

29MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one may bring neither a small child, nor a lulav, nor a Torah scroll into the public domain, but the House of Hillel permit it [Since in principle everything forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on the holiday except the preparation of food, the House of Shammai forbid carrying in the public domain of anything which is not food nor needed for the preparation of food. The House of Hillel hold that since carrying is permitted for the purpose of preparing or serving food, it is permitted for any purpose legitimate on the holiday.] .

30HALAKHAH: Therefore not an adult [Since the Mishnah could be read that the House of Hillel only permit to carry a baby but not anybody able to walk by himself.] ? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even an adult is permitted. For what purpose was stated “a small child”? It comes to inform you of the strength of the House of Shammai, how far they are restrictive. Samuel was carried from bed to bed [It is not clear whether these were his own beds or, since he was a medical man, whether he was carried in a litter on his visits to the sick, as explicitly endorsed in the next paragraph.] . Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa, let us say that he was asthenic [Greek ʼασθενής.] . He told him, he was healthier than I and you. It was stated, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi <yose> [Added from G.Here starts a fragment of an Ashkenazic text edited by J. Sussman in Kobez al Yad xii (xxii) 1994 (A).] says, the stones on which we sat on in our youth make war against us in our old age. Rebbi Jonah ordered the colleagues, do not sit on the [outside] [Corrector’s addition, unsupported by any source, to be deleted.] stone benches of the assembly [The house of study.] of Bar Ulla because they are cold. Rav commanded his students, do not sit on the outside table of the assembly of Issy because it is cold. Rebbi Abba went down to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias, leaning on two Goths [Babli Ketubot 62a, Berakhot 60a.] . They fell down and he lifted them up, they fell down and he lifted them up. One asked him, what is this? He said to them, I preserved my strength for my old age. Rav Huna did not come to the house of assembly. Rav Qatina asked, was it not stated that one carries the asthenics?

31Rav Huna instructed the Head of the Dispersion [A: “the wife of the Head of the Diaspora.” Since it is not clear whether this text is a source or a compilation, and the statement contradicts the following discussion, it should not be accepted.] to go out in a chair [To be carried on the holiday. Since the Head of the Diaspora was the quasi-king of the Jews of Babylonia, his actions can be classified as public needs.] . Rav Ḥisda asked, was it not stated, one does not go out in a chair, whether men or women? Even a student of the Sages does not err in this matter, and Rebbi Huna erred [But certainly for public needs it is permitted to use a chair. Babli 25b.] ? Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Bar Gerontios the healer to be carried on a sheet when going visiting the sick on the Sabbath [If he is carried on an improvised contraption he can take his medical equipment with him, which he could not do were he walking. Since the way of transportation is not a common one, it is only rabbinically forbidden. Since the carrying needs several carriers, it is a Sabbath infraction depending on the action of several persons and neither prosecutable nor generating liability in the sense of the Sabbath laws.] . Miasha the grandson of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi was carried on a sheet when going preaching in public on the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeriqan said to Rebbi Ze`ira, when you go to the South, ask about this. It was asked from Rebbi Simon. Rebbi Simon told them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only for the needs of the public but also for a possible need of the public [A general instruction that for urgent public needs the Sabbath (and holiday) restrictions on transportation may be circumvented as described in the previous Note.] . Example: Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Abba Mari, and Rebbi Mattaniah instructed {to bring} [Ginzberg’s reading in G; the edition of the Jerusalem Talmud by the Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2001, reads “to bake”. This is the expression used by the Yerushalmi in Ševi`it 4:2 (Note 28) and its copy in Sanhedrin 3:6, where it is reported that R. Jonah and R. Yose, greater authorities than the three rabbis mentioned here, permitted baking bread for the army of Ursicinus (the legate of the Emperor Gallus in Syria starting 351 C. E.) Since the paragraph deals with transport, Ginzberg’s reading seems to be more appropriate. The rabbis instructed the people to bring bread to the Roman army on the Sabbath, probably by having several people doing the carrying, and to prepare for it even though no request was made before the start of the Sabbath.] bread to Ursicinus on the Sabbath, for a possible need of the public.

32It was stated: And not the key; the House of Hillel permit [In Tosephta 1:11 there is a statement that any key may be carried in one’s hand (but not tied to the belt, which is the usual weekday dress.)] . And Rav Hoshaia the son of Rav Isaac [No such sage is known otherwise. Read with G: “Rav Hoshaia in the name of Rebbi Isaac.”] said, this refers to a key of edibles, but not to a key of implements. But did not Rebbi Abbahu sit and teach, and a key of a jewel box [Greek διπλωματάριον.] in his hand? He had pepper inside.

33MISHNAH: The House of Shammai are saying, one may not bring ḥallah [The priest’s part of bread dough (Num. 15:20).] and priests’ parts [The priest’s part of profane slaughter, Deut. 18:3.] to a Cohen on the holiday, whether they have been separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, it is an equal cut. Ḥallah and priests’ parts are a gift to the Cohen, and heave [The priest’s part in agricultural harvest, Num. 18:12.] is a gift to the Cohen. Just as one may not bring heave to the Cohen, so one may not bring these parts. The House of Hillel said to them, no. If you mention heave where he has no right to separate, what can you say about the gifts which he may separate [Since harvest is forbidden on the holiday, clearly it must be finished before the holiday. Since it is a deadly sin to eat from grain, wine, or olive oil from which heave was not taken, separating heave is an indispensable part of the harvest and must be finished before the holiday. Therefore one may ask that the priests’ parts in agricultural produce must be delivered before the holiday. But since baking and slaughtering for meat is permitted on the holiday, ḥallah and priest’s parts may be separated on the holiday and there is no reason to forbid their delivery.] ?

34HALAKHAH: It was stated [Tosephta 1:12, Babli 12b.] : “Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one may bring parts which were separated on the holiday, as well as parts which were separated before the start of the holiday with parts separated on the holiday. Where did they disagree? About parts which were separated before the start of the holiday by themselves, where the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit.”

35It is difficult for the House of Hillel, could he not have the right to separate heave? Think of it, if he made a stipulation [Demai 7:5: “R. Isaac ben Eleazar said, a person can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow.” Therefore it is possible to actually separate heave on the Sabbath or a holiday if the modality of separation was stipulated the day before.] ! One because of the other [Since in general heave may not be delivered to the Cohen on the holiday, one makes no exemption for the rare case in which delivery would be possible.] . And why was ḥallah stated? Because of ḥallah which was separated on the holiday. As it was stated: [Tosephta 1:14. The text from here to the end of the Halakhah also is in Pesaḥim3:3, Notes 68–72.] “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed [Even though Mishnah Ḥallah 3:1 permits separating ḥallah immediately after mixing the flour with water.] ? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure [Since then only the ḥallah has to be guarded from impurity but not the dough itself.] . The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted [The remark applies both to Tosephta Yom Ṭov 1:14 and Mishnah Pesaḥim 3:3.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them [Ex. 12:16. Since impure ḥallah may not be eaten, it may not be baked on a holiday.] .

36MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that spices are pounded in a wooden mortar, and salt in a container or with a cooking spoon. But the House of Hillel say that spices are pounded normally in a stone mortar and salt in a wooden mortar [The House of Shammai hold that since pounding spices and salt could have been done the day before, the general permission to cook cannot be extended to these preparations; they must be done in a way different from working day usage to avoid a biblical transgression. The House of Hillel hold that pounded spices quickly use their taste (in the absence of containers which can be tightly closed); therefore pounding spices is an integral part of the cooking process and may be done as on a weekday, but for taking salt from a block they agree with the reasoning of the House of Shammai.] .

37HALAKHAH: Could he not pound the day before? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because they taste bitter; Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because they lose their taste [Babli 14a.] .

38Samuel pounded on the side of the mortar [If he had to grind some spices he turned the mortar on its side to make it different from weekday pounding. Since this is a statement of what he did, not what he taught, it seems that this was a personal precaution since in his medical practice he might also pound some materials for compounding a medicine which if done in the ordinary way would be a biblical infraction, as mentioned later in this paragraph.] . Rav said, anything that is pounded may be pounded in its ordinary way [If it may be ground into fine particles at all, it may be done the way it is done on weekdays. Babli 14a in the name of Samuel.] . Rav Huna [If it may be ground into fine particles at all, it may be done the way it is done on weekdays. Babli 14a in the name of Samuel.] , Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Garlic, and cress, and mustard seed are pounded in their ordinary way [If this name belongs to the chain of transmission it would have to be Rebbi Huna. But since Galso has the title “Rav”, and Rav Huna was the leader of the second generation of Amoraim in Babylonia, one has to read the statement as indicating two sources. Both Rav Huna and R. Jeremiah quoting R. Immi in the name of R. Joḥanan state .…] . Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes oenanthium [A wine-based medicine (Galen 13. 540). In the Babli Šabbat 140a defined as a suspension of balsamum in old wine.] on a Sabbath is liable because of compounding. Is it therefore permitted on a holiday [Since it is stated to be forbidden only on a Sabbath and at least the wine base of the medicine is food.] ? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Making oenanthium on a holiday is forbidden [The way it is formulated for the Sabbath it cannot be formulated for the holiday. Compounding (spices or medicines) is one of the 39 categories of work forbidden on the Sabbath, an unintended infraction makes the person liable for a purification sacrifice since the intentional infraction is a capital crime or deadly sin. But work on holidays is a simple prohibition which never can trigger liability for a purification sacrifice, and intentional infraction is not a deadly sin. Therefore “liable” fits for the Sabbath and “forbidden” for the holiday.] because of compounding. Isaac Gold asked Rebbi Joḥanan, may one pound for spice wine [Latin conditum (vinum), usually used for the finished product, here used for the spices to be put into the wine. Even though spice wine might be used for medical purposes it also is a drink for healthy people and therefore its preparation is permitted on the holiday.] on a holiday? He said to him, it is permitted. <rebbi isaac from atosha asked rebi simeon be laqish, may one pound to make spice wine on a holiday? he said to him, it is permitted;> [Sentence missing in the ms. and printed edition. Since the sentence is both in Gand A, it belongs to the text, and was dropped by the scribe because of homeoteleuton.] give it to me and I shall drink. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Would one not act well in pounding it the day before? He said to him, yes. The argument of Rebbi Abbahu is inverted. Here he says permitted, and there he says forbidden [While R. Abbahu did not explicitly say that pounding spices for spice wine is forbidden on the holiday, he agreed with R. Ze`ira that it was better to pound the day before, implying that on the holiday it must be done in a way different from weekday action, against Rav’s ruling at the start of the paragraph.] . But since Rebbi Abbahu knew that Rebbi Ze`ira was restrictive, and that they [The Babylonians, including R. Ze`ira the immigrant from Babylonia.] are restrictive, therefore he agreed with them. Some want to say that so he said to him: If one wants that it be good he will not pound it the day before. Rebbi Ze`ira asked Kallidromos [Reading of S. Liebermann, Tarbiz 3, p. 209.] , the slave of Rebbi Judah the Prince, does your master pound to make spice wine on a holiday? He said to him yes, and all kinds of cuts of meat [Mincing the meat with the knife, sica. Probably this means to make sausage on the holiday.] . Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Immi, the father of Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris. Where do they disagree [The disagreement of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel about pounding salt. When it is used sparingly, both agree that it may be pounded in a wooden mortar in the regular way. If great quantities are needed the House of Shammai is restrictive. Babli 14a.] ? For grilling. Put for the pot it is permitted. Rebbi Naḥum said, Rebbi Samuel bar Abba asked about noodle dough. To let it dry is forbidden, for the pot it is permitted, part and part is questionable [Making noodle dough for use after the holiday clearly is a biblical violation and forbidden. Making soup noodles for immediate use clearly is permitted. Making both cannot be biblically forbidden; whether it is rabbinically forbidden is left undecided.] .

39MISHNAH: If one selects out legumes [He separates the edible from the inedible parts of peas, beans, or lentils.] on the holiday, the House of Shammai say he picks out the food [Since separating the chaff from the grain is a biblical Sabbath violation, and on the holiday may be classified as preliminary to the preparation of food, the House of Shammai require that on the holiday one follows the Sabbath rules, which let you pick out the food but not the chaff.] and eats. But the House of Hillel say, he picks out normally into his chest or a basket, but not on a tablet, not with a fine sieve nor with a coarse sieve [They hold that the activity is included in the permitted preparation of food but require that it be done in a way which does not resemble commercial preparation of the harvest for sale.] . Rabban Gamliel says, also he drenches and scoops off [He proposes to dump the entire material into a vat or barrel filled with water. The chaff will float on the surface and can easily be swept out. Since the legumes will be wet, it is not a commercial procedure.] .

40HALAKHAH: [This and the following paragraphs are from Šabbat 7, Notes 314–342. The Genizah text ends here; the text A brings only the first few lines.] Rebbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If he did it on the Sabbath would he not be liable according to the House of Hillel? And here he is liable. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah said it correctly. It is a problem only for the House of Shammai. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted on the holiday, nothing of the category of selecting was permitted on the Sabbath [The objection of R. Yose is pointless. There is no problem for the House of Hillel since they hold that selecting as a category is permitted on the holiday but forbidden on the Sabbath. But we do not know whether the House of Shammai hold the same and are rabbinically restrictive on the holiday more than the House of Hillel or whether they hold that selecting does not belong to the preparation of food but to preliminaries to preparation which are not exempted on the holiday and for which, therefore, the rules are identical on Sabbath and holiday. Since in his days, in the middle of the Fourth Century, the House of Shammai had disappeared for 250 years, no answer can be given.] .

41[The paragraph has a parallel in the Babli, Šabbat 74a/b.] If one selected food out of food, Ḥizqiah said, one is liable; Rebbi Joḥanan said, one is not liable [It is somewhat difficult to understand Ḥizqiah’s position. What is biblically forbidden on the Sabbath is removing chaff from food, not food from chaff (except, as mentioned later in this paragraph, if the entire batch was cleaned, when there is no difference what was taken from where.) Biblically Ḥizqiah would have to forbid to remove the food one does not want to eat from the food one wants to eat; the other way would only be rabbinically forbidden.] . A baraita disagrees with Ḥizqiah: He selects and eats, he selects and puts on the table [For immediate consumption. There is no difference whether one puts food in his own mouth or in others’.] . Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: explain it if guests were eating what was served. But was it not stated: On condition that he did not select all of its kind? In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, because one who selects on the Sabbath is liable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, because one who selects normally at another place [The “other place” is the Sabbath. Liability on the Sabbath can always be avoided by doing things in a decidedly unprofessional way; the mention of doing things “normally” is appropriate here.] is liable. In the opinion of Ḥizqiah, even rings among rings [String figs from a heap of string figs.] , even pomegranates among pomegranates. Or is it so, even people among people [Then it would be forbidden on the Sabbath to call people to read the Torah unless they had been selected beforehand. This we never heard.] ? How is this? Everybody agrees with that of Rebbi Immi. For Rebbi Immi had guests; he brought before them lupines [Greek θερμός.] and beans [Greek φάσηλος.] . He told them, be careful to eat the artichokes [Greek κινάρα. On a holiday it is permitted to select anything for immediate consumption, even if there are no remainders, and eat a different dessert at the end.] at the end.

42It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift [Translation of the corrector’s text and the text in Šabbat. The scribe’s text “one is not pedantic” would leave open the possibility that coarse selection and grinding was not prosecutable.] . He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40 [The 39 lashes which are the standard punishment for breaking biblical prohibitions for which no other biblical punishment is specified. The Babli disagrees and declares these activities only rabbinically prohibited on a holiday, cf. Tosaphot Šabbat 95a, s. v. והרודה. While preparing food is biblically permitted on a holiday as shown later in the paragraph, there is a dispute between the anonymous majority and R. Jehudah whether this includes preparations which could have been made the day before without impairing the quality of the food, which the majority prohibits and R. Jehudah and Rabban Gamliel permit. It is stated here that for the majority the prohibition is biblical, at least concerning preparations for baking.] . But did we not state: “he picks out normally into his chest or a basket”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he drenches and scoops off.” And was it not stated, in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills [Rabban Gamliel will agree that milling flour is biblically forbidden on a holiday; he will hold that grinding pepper in a peppermill is not professionally grinding and not something which may be done the day before without impairing the quality of the spice.] ? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Normal grinding was not permitted. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread [Ex. 12:16–17. The text omitted by the quote “up to” permits preparation of food on a holiday, as quoted later in the paragraph.] . Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread [There is nothing missing between the two quotes, so that the note “up to” seems to be superfluous. The meaning is explained in Tosaphot Beṣah 3a s.v. גזרה (at the end): vv. 16,17 form a unit: what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Any preparation of mazzah which requires guarding against possible leavening is permitted on the holiday, anything preceding this, i. e., mixing flour with water to make dough, is forbidden.] . Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement [Against the Mishnah where the House of Hillel permit selecting.] : only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.

43[This text also appears in Šabbat Chapter 20 (17c line 35). The parallel in the Babli is in Šabbat 138a where the argument of R. Ze`ira is quoted in his name but the introductory statement is in the name of Rav Cahana. In Šabbat, the original author is Samuel, not Rav. This may be a lectio difficilior since Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi was a companion of Rav; but if Rav Cahana is Cahana, the stepson of Rav, it would represent a Babylonian tradition.] Rebbi Ze`ira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Samuel: One who filters is liable because of selecting. Rebbi Ze`ira said, it is more reasonable that it should be because of sifting. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both said, at the start we were saying that Rebbi Ze`ira said it correctly, since as in sifting the flour is below and the farina [The coarser pieces.] on top, so in filtering wine the wine is 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 [On a holiday, as shown later from Mishnaiot.] . 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 [Mishnah Šabbat 20:1. According to the anonymous majority on a holiday one may not put a filter on top of a barrel because this is an activity not covered by the general permission to prepare food, but if the filter already was in place one may filter wine on a holiday.] ”. But the category of sifting was not permitted. As Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yaqe said in the name of Rav Jehudah, One does not re-sift the flour but one may pass it through the back of the sieve [Filtering.] . If you say it is because of sifting, it [Tosephta Megillah 1:7.] should be forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it does not follow Rebbi Jehudah, for it was stated in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, also preparations for making food are permitted [Tosephta Megillah 1:7.] . There is a question about the following: following the rabbis, may one re-sift the flour through the back of the sieve?

44MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, on a holiday one sends only portions [Either a prepared meal or a single piece of meat which can be cooked as is.] , but the House of Hillel say one sends domestic animals, wild animals, and birds, whether alive or slaughtered. One sends wines, oils, and flour, and legumes, but no grains [Since it was stated in the previous Halakhah that grinding grains is forbidden on the holiday; therefore grains are not food available on the holiday.] . Rebbi Simeon permits grains [Grains can be used as cold or hot cereal and also as animal feed without being ground. There is no reason not to treat them as ready food on the holiday.] .

45HALAKHAH: It is difficult for the House of Shammai. A large thigh one is permitted to send, a small kid goat one is not permitted to send. Rebbi Yudan said, it only is understood if he carries it [Grains can be used as cold or hot cereal and also as animal feed without being ground. There is no reason not to treat them as ready food on the holiday.] . But if he draws it and it walks, what is the difference if he draws it to deliver it or he draws it to let it drink? The Great Rebbi Hoshaia asked Rebbi Jehudah the Prince, did you hear from your father whether one is permitted to move a chicken [If the House of Hillel do not allow an egg laid on the holiday to be moved, would it not be reasonable to conclude that a chicken raised to produce eggs cannot be moved either.] ? Certainly if it was ready for slaughter it is permitted, otherwise it is forbidden. But are not all chickens ready for slaughter? The question is, maybe even if it is not ready [If the chicken explicitly is raised to lay eggs, not to be used as meat.] . He told him in a whisper [If it is to be a private ruling, not to be made public, it must be a permission to move such a chicken for which the prior argument was made that it may not be moved. The permission to deliver live animals on a holiday spelled out in the House of Hillel’s Mishnah is not restricted.] . He asked him, why are you telling me in a whisper? He said to him, just I heard it in a whisper, so I am telling you in a whisper.

46It was stated [Tosephta 1:23, a different text Babli 14b. In the Tosephta, (and the quote in Or Zarua II 341) instead of נדיות one reads לודיות “from Lydda”. This also would make עססיות (Tosephta spelling) a toponymic. But since the Genizah text confirms the scribe’s, it is impossible here to emend the text, in particular because the Tosephta is not certain as a Palestinian text. Here it is tentatively interpreted as from Arabic נד֗י “to be moist, covered with dew”.] : “One sends wheat because when crushed it is food, beans because when wet they are food, barley because it is animal feed.” Did we not state so in the name of Rebbi Simeon? For all breathing [Ex. 12:16. The verse permits preparing food “for all breathing things” on the holiday. Mekhilta Bo Pisḥa 9.] , also breathing animals are included. The argument of Rebbi Simeon parallels that of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said [Babli 21b.] , for all breathing, also breathing animals are included, so Rebbi Simeon said, for all breathing, also breathing animals are included.

47MISHNAH: One may send garments whether sewn or not sewn [The sewn garments may be worn, the unsewn pieces of cloth may be used to cover items, in particular food.] , and even if they do not respond to a holiday need [Not for a specified need of the holiday, only a possibility of legitimate use.] . But not a sandal with nails [Nails in the soles, which are forbidden to wear on the Sabbath (Mishnah Šabbat 6:2) and holidays.] nor a shoe which is not sown. Rebbi Jehudah says, also no white shoe [Not colored white but undyed leather, which needs expert dying.] because it needs a craftsman. This is the principle: Anything which one may use on the holiday one may send.

48HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: Because it needs the shoe-maker’s form [Blackening a shoe is not really professional work; it can be done by everybody, but it needs professional tools. Babli 15a.] . Is the Mishnah Rebbi Eliezer’s? As we have stated there [Mishnah Kelim 26:4.] , “the shoe on the shoe-maker’s last, Rebbi Eliezer declares pure but the Sages declare impure [In this context, “pure” means “impervious to impurity”, “impure” means “possibly impure”. For R. Eliezer a shoe still on the last is not an implement, therefore it does not fall under any of the categories of things that may become impure. For the Sages, the moment the shoe is fully sewn and may be worn immediately after being removed from the last, it is a shoe and therefore subject to impurity. Babli Šabbat 141b.] .” It is the opinion of everybody. It is different here since he is like finishing an implement on the holiday [In the case of the Mishnah, while a person may be embarrassed when wearing a shoe with leather in its natural color, the shoe is not less wearable than a regularly dyed one. Therefore blackening the shoe is not really “hitting with a hammer”, the biblically prohibited action on the Sabbath and holidays of turning a work-piece into an implement, but it looks like it and therefore must be rabbinically forbidden.] . It was stated [Since on the intermediate days one may prepare clothing for immediate use.] : One does not dismantle a shoe from the last on the holiday, but one dismantles a shoe from the last on the intermediate days of the holiday [Since on the intermediate days one may prepare clothing for immediate use.] .

49May one make cheese from milk on the holiday [There can be no biblical prohibition to make soft cheese which can be used on the same day it is made, since this is no different from cooking a dish, presuming the milk was available from before the holiday. The prohibition is purely rabbinical. Babli Šabbat 95a.] ? If you are saying so, he will milk and make cheese on the holiday for the workday.

50[This text is copied in Šabbat 6 (Notes 60–65).] Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: It is forbidden to send jewelry. Rebbi Mana said, they said only to send, therefore to wear is permitted. It was stated: “One may move the shofar [Tosephta Šabbat (13:16 ed. Liebermann) The ram’s horn. As a musical instrument it cannot be used on a holiday other than New Year’s Day. Since writing is forbidden on the holiday, a writing tablet cannot be used. The mirror is discussed in Šabbat 6. The Tosephta applies to the Sabbath as well as to holidays since one speaks of moving in a private domain (Babli Šabbat 35b/36a).] to let a child drink, the writing tablet, and the bell, and the mirror, to cover vessels.” Rebbi 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 [They must have permitted use. For example, the shofar must have been used on a preceding weekday as bottle for a toddler; the other things mentioned must have been used as covers.] . So far gold jewelry. Also even silver jewelry? They said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah forbidden, and they said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah permitted. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the beginning and the end. Small girls were growing up in Rebbi Jeremiah’s dwelling. He went and asked Rebbi Ze`ira, who told him: do not forbid and do not permit [Since in principle silver jewelry is forbidden to wear on a holiday as much as gold jewelry, he cannot permit. But since the girls would not listen to him if he would forbid, he should not prohibit. Since this is a rabbinic prohibition only, it is better that people should be ignorant of the prohibition than violate it knowingly.] .