MISHNAH: He who finds tefillin [Phylacteries, to be worn on weekdays, one on the arm and one on the head. Since they contain passages of Torah (Ex. 13:1–10, 11–16; Deut. 6:4–9, 11:13–21), they are holy and may not be left unprotected lying in the open on the road. Since the rule that phylacteries are muqṣeh and not to be worn on the Sabbath is rabbinic, in case of need the rabbinic restriction is waved; the tefillin may be worn as clothing; bringing them to a safe place in this way is a meritorious act, not a Sabbath desecration.] brings them in pair by pair; Rabban Gamliel says, two by two [Even though on weekdays one never wears tefillin this way, since it is possible to wear two pairs simultaneously it is preferable to reduce the number of trips, i. e., the number of violations of rabbinic Sabbath restrictions.] . When has this been said? For used ones, but for new ones [They look like tefillin but in fact might be amulets for which no rules are waived.] he is not liable. If he found them in heaps or bundles [Heaps are lightly tied together, bundles are tied pair by pair.] he stays there until it becomes dark and then brings them, but in times of danger [When the exercise of Jewish rites is prosecuted by the government.] he covers them and goes away.
HALAKHAH: ““He who finds tefillin,” etc. “He who finds tefillin [Phylacteries, to be worn on weekdays, one on the arm and one on the head. Since they contain passages of Torah (Ex. 13:1–10, 11–16; Deut. 6:4–9, 11:13–21), they are holy and may not be left unprotected lying in the open on the road. Since the rule that phylacteries are muqṣeh and not to be worn on the Sabbath is rabbinic, in case of need the rabbinic restriction is waved; the tefillin may be worn as clothing; bringing them to a safe place in this way is a meritorious act, not a Sabbath desecration.] brings them in pair by pair;” as clothing, one on his head and one on his arm. “Rabban Gamliel says, two by two [Even though on weekdays one never wears tefillin this way, since it is possible to wear two pairs simultaneously it is preferable to reduce the number of trips, i. e., the number of violations of rabbinic Sabbath restrictions.] ,” two on his head and two on his arm.
[Most of this and the next paragraph are in Berakhot 2:3, Notes 104–115. A text closer to the formulation here is in Pesiqta Rabbati 22 (ed. Ish-Shalom p. 112b, Notes 47–54).] Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar [In Pesiqta rabbati: R. Joḥanan.] : He who puts on tefillin in the night transgresses a positive commandment. What is the reason? You shall keep this law …, from day to day [Ex. 13:10.] ; “days” not nights. But Rebbi Abbahu sat studying at night with his tefillin on his head! He put them on the side; they were like a deposit [Reading with the two other sources פיקדון instead of פיקרין “wool flakes”.] in his keeping. Some want to say, he only meant “not to put them on,” but when they were on him during daytime it would be permitted. Some want to say that the obligation is until the foot is disappearing from public places [As long as there is traffic in the streets. This statement is missing in Berakhot.] . Some want to say, let us hear it from the following: It shall be for you a sign [Ex. 13:19.] , when you need it for a sign, but not holiday or Sabbaths that are all sign. But is it not written from day to day? You have only what Rebbi Joḥanan said: Everything that is not clear one supports from many places.
Women from where? And you should teach them to your sons [Deut. 11:19.] , but not to your daughters. Anyone who is obliged to study Torah is obliged for tefillin, women who are not obliged to study Torah are not obliged for tefillin They objected, but did not Michal, the daughter of Saul, wear tefillin, and did not the wife of Jonah make the pilgrimage to the Temple, and the Sages did not object?. Rebbi Ḥisqiah in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Jonah’s wife was turned back, the Sages objected [In both parallel texts: מיחו בידיה “interfered with her”, i. e., actually forbade it.] to Michal the daughter of Saul.
They wanted to say, in the rabbi’s opinion it is not clear; in Rabban Gamliel’s opinion it is clear [The rabbis hold that the verse, it shall be for you a sign, does not necessarily imply that tefillin may not be worn on a Sabbath. Therefore they require that the tefillin be worn as if it were a weekday to avoid any Sabbath violation. Rabban Gamliel holds that the inference from the verse is absolutely valid; wearing the tefillin is a violation in itself, and therefore he prescribes, not simply permits, wearing two tefillin in order to demonstrate that they are not worn qua tefillin.] . Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Samuel: They estimated to say, up to the place where it can be placed on the top of the head [The head tefillin have to be placed at the top of the forehead, where it becomes horizontal. R. Jeremiah disputes the inference drawn in the first sentence and notes that Rabban Gamliel also may hold that not wearing tefillin on the Sabbath is general practice but not biblical commandment; only he biblically permits wearing two pairs of tefillin simultaneously.] . For how many is there space? Two. Then even on weekdays? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, if he wants to put there, he puts [In effect it would be permitted to wear two pairs simultaneously. [Sefer HaTerumah, Tefillin, §213 (ed. Warsaw 1897 p. 116c top, ed. Jerusalem 2010, col. 490) reads the passage as inviting people to change the placement of the head tefillin at will but permitting only one pair. This seems to be reading the Yerushalmi text on the basis of the Babli 95b.]] . Rebbi Zeriqa said, Rav Hamnuna explained to me, up to the place where the baby’s brain is soft. There we have stated [Mishnai Idiut 6:1.] : “About a chicken which was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a person.” It saw that the skull of the baby was soft; it went and picked it.
Rebbi Yose said, so is the Mishnah: Only by pairs [The rabbis hold that the verse, it shall be for you a sign, does not necessarily imply that tefillin may not be worn on a Sabbath. Therefore they require that the tefillin be worn as if it were a weekday to avoid any Sabbath violation. Rabban Gamliel holds that the inference from the verse is absolutely valid; wearing the tefillin is a violation in itself, and therefore he prescribes, not simply permits, wearing two tefillin in order to demonstrate that they are not worn qua tefillin.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Even by pairs [This refers to the statement of Rabban Gamliel in Mishnah 1. R. Aḥa follows R. Jeremiah in holding that Rabban Gamliel might consider the Sabbath as biblically a time for tefillin.] . They wanted to say, in the rabbi’s opinion it is not clear; in Rabban Aḥa’s opinion it is clear [A repetition of a sentence from the preceding paragraph , quoted as background for the question in the next sentence. If Rabban Gamliel holds that tefillin are biblically forbidden on the Sabbath, and transporting them on the Sabbath is a violation, why not simply carry them?] . Could he not bring them in his hand? It is better to bring them as garment [Then the Sabbath is violated only rabbinically.] not as load. It is better to push the Sabbath away once not twice.
It was stated [Tosephta 8:15.] : Whether he be a man or a woman. They wanted to say, he who said that it is clear, is understandable. He who said that it is not clear, should it not be clear for a man but clear for a woman [Since in the preceding it was stated that the Sages disapproved of (or interfered with) a woman putting on tefillin, then it should be clear that the Sabbath is not a time for tefillin for a woman and the rules for men and women should be different.] ? Rebbi Eleazar said, who is he who stated “woman”? Rabban Gamliel [This is the reading of two of the ms. sources in the Tosephta. In R. Eleazar’s opinion, the rabbis might oppose a woman putting on tefillin to preserve them on the Sabbath.] ! As it was stated [The same statement in Sukkah 2:1 (52d l.45).] : Tabi the slave of Rabban Gamliel was putting on tefillin and the Sages did not interfere with him. Did they here interfere with him [If this refers to Michal the daughter of Saul it should be “her” not him”. It may simply be a copy from the discussion in Sukhah, referring to Tabi.] ? It is the same for a slave or a woman [Since both women and slaves are exempted from positive commandments tied to fixed times, and tefillin are not to be worn during nighttime.] .
“When has this been said? For used ones, but for new ones [They look like tefillin but in fact might be amulets for which no rules are waived.] he is free.” Why? Old ones are checked, new ones are not checked [This is the practical definition of “new” and “old” in the Mishnah. The obligation to take care of them applies only if it is clear that the items are (rabbinic) tefillin and neither amulets nor non-standard tefillin (such as the tefillin from Qumran).] . It was stated [Mekhilta dR.. Simeon ben Yoḥai Ba 17 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 69), cf. Tanḥuma Bo 14 (end) (Sefer Wehizhir ed. I. M. Freimann p. 8), with Shammai in place of Hillel. Quoted by Tosaphot Menaḥot 43a.] : One has to check tefillin once every twelve months, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, they do not need checking. Hillel the Elder said, these are from my maternal grandfather. If he found two or three heaps, he checks the first pair of the first bundle; the same with the second or the third [The presumption is that of validity of the tefillin; in general prima facie evidence of validity is established by three checks. A similar rule regarding buying tefillin from a place not under rabbinic supervision is in Tosephta Avodah zarah 3:8.] . Isaac ben Eleazar [There are at least two Amoraim of this name.] asked: Does one create a presumption for all of them or is each one of them for itself? If you are saying that one creates a presumption for all of them, he checks the first pair of the first heap [In this case one reads the Tosephta as meaning that one may freely choose the batch from which one examines one pair. In the second alternative one has to establish regular presumption of validity for every separate batch. Cf. Babli 97a.] . If you are saying that each one creates a presumption for itself, he checks three pairs from each heap.
“But in times of danger [When the exercise of Jewish rites is prosecuted by the government.] he covers them and goes away.” “If it was in the rainy season he covers himself with leather and covers them. [Cf. Tosephta 8:16.] ” Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: This you are saying if it is soft. But if it is hard it is like a load [He goes home and takes a sheet of soft leather which he uses as a raincoat until he returns to the place of the tefillin (or in the case of the Tosephta, a Torah scroll) and covers them. But a hard sheet which cannot be used as a raincoat may not be taken out on the Sabbath since this would be a biblical violation.] . If the place was at an incline, but if it was not an incline this does not apply [If the tefillin were immersed in standing water and ruined by the time he returns from his house, trying to cover them in leather would be futile; he is not required to do anything.] .
MISHNAH: Rebbi Simeon says, he gives them to another person, and this one to another, until one reaches the outermost courtyard [Since nobody transports the tefillin more than 4 cubits, the entire heap may be brought to safety in one operation. The only rabbinic restriction which is violated in this case is that of muqṣeh.] . Similarly with his son [A baby circumcised in the fields.] , he gives him to another person, and this one to another, even if they are one hundred. Rebbi Jehudah says, a person may give an amphora to another person, and this one to another, even outside the Sabbath domain. They said to him, it should go no farther than its owner’s feet [No vessel under the control of its owner may be transported into a domain inaccessible to its owner on the Sabbath.] .
HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 2.] . Rebbi Eliezer [Read: R. Eleazar. R. Mana is R. Mana I.] and Rebbi Eudaimon in the name of Rebbi Mana: In the case of a baby in danger [If Jewish rites are forbidden and the baby is circumcised in the field and has to be carried back to his mother.] . His colleague objected to him: If in the case of a baby in danger should he not carry him in his hand [Since if performing the circumcision in the fields is a necessity it supersedes the prohibitions of the Sabbath (Šabbat 19) or if the actual state of the baby is that of critically ill, saving its life also supersedes the prohibitions of the Sabbath. In any case it seems unnecessary to form a human chain to carry the baby.] ? He answered him, if he can bring him in a permitted way [In the Babli (97b) Levi the old man (סבא).] .
Rebbi Simeion ben Laqish in the name of Levi from Sokho [But if no human chain can be formed, the baby is carried by one person.] : If he pours from vessel to vessel [This refers to R. Jehudah’s statement that an amphora can be transported like a baby. This is corrected; the amphora cannot be carried more than 4 cubits, but its contents can transported an unlimited distance, since for him fluids are not bound to the place they were in at the start of the Sabbath (Chapter 8, Note 79; Mishnah Beṣah 5:4).] . For if it were otherwise, would Rebbi Jehudah follow his own opinion, as Rebbi Jehudah said, fluid to wet [But if no human chain can be formed, the baby is carried by one person.] ?
MISHNAH: He who reads a scroll on the threshold [Šabbat 1, Note 68.] and the scroll rolls away from his hand, rolls it back to himself [Even though part of the scroll is now in the public domain, as long as he holds on to part of the scroll, rolling it back is not transporting from public to private domain.] . If he was reading on a rooftop and the scroll rolls away from his hand, if it did not reach ten hand-breadths [Since the airspace over public domain above 10 hand-breadths from the ground is exempt space, taking the scroll back from the air over the public domain does not infringe any rabbinic rule.] he rolls it back to himself; but after it reached ten hand-breadths he turns it upside down on the writing. Rebbi Jehudah says, even if it is removed from the ground only a thread’s width he rolls it back to himself. Rebbi Simeon says, even from the ground itself he rolls it back to himself [Even though part of the scroll is now in the public domain, as long as he holds on to part of the scroll, rolling it back is not transporting from public to private domain.] , since no rabbinic Sabbath prohibition stands before Holy Scripture.
HALAKHAH: Paragraph. The Mishnah: On the threshold it is permitted, but outside the threshold it is forbidden [In the public domain one may not move anything which is more than 4 cubits from the mover.] . Explain it that he was sitting there reading when it still was daytime, or he forgot and took it out [Since the threshold is karmelit, it should have been forbidden to bring the scroll to the threshold in the first place. It either must have been there before the start of the Sabbath or was brought there inadvertently.] . Before it reaches ten hand-breadths he rolls it back to himself. After it reaches ten hand-breadths it is forbidden. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: It is Rebbi Jehudah’s who said that it is forbidden to use the airspace within ten hand-breadths [Šabbat 11, Note 49.] .
“But after it reached ten hand-breadths he turns it upside down on the writing.” Why? That the writing should not be debased. This parallels what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of .Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: If a scroll is not covered by a cloth one turns it upside down on the writing so that the writing should not be debased [Also Megillah 1:7, 71d l. 31; Sopherim 3:16.] .
“Rebbi Jehudah says, even if it is removed from the ground only a thread’s width he rolls it back to himself..” The argument of Rebbi Jehudah is inverted. There [Šabbat 11, Note 49.] he says, it is forbidden to use the airspace within ten hand-breadths; and here he says so? Rebbi Joḥanan said, here there is no Rebbi Jehudah, only Rebbi Meïr, the words of the Sages. Rebbi Yose said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Not only a scroll but even a belt [Latin fascia, -ae, f. “band, girdle”. The rule of the Mishnah is one of the rules of karmelit, not a special leniency for holy writings.] .
MISHNAH: On a ledge in front of a window [If it is at least 4 hand-breadths wide and 10 hand-breadths above ground, it is a separate domain, and may be used by people in the house and on the street.] one puts things on the Sabbath and removes from there.
HALAKHAH: [Discussion of Mishnah 4.] It speaks only about one, but two are forbidden, for two domains cannot use one domain [The Mishnah is formulated in the singular; this implies that from a window of one house one is permitted to use a ledge below the window only if the ledge is not reachable from another house. Here it is assumed that the ledge is not within 10 hand-breadths from the ground; then it would be part of the public domain, but not 4 hand-breadths wide, which would make is a separate domain.] . If it is not four wide. But if it is four wide, that is what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Ledges and walls high ten [hand-breadths] and wide four are permitted for both sides, on condition that he may not exchange [Chapter 7, Note 49.] .
MISHNAH: A person may stand in a private domain and move something in the public domain, in the public domain and move something in the private, on condition that he not move it more than four cubits. A person may not stand in a private domain and urinate in the public, or in the public and urinate in the private. Similarly, he may not spit. Rebbi Jehudah says, even somebody whose spittle was accumulating should not walk four cubits before spitting [Since the spittle is to be spat out, carrying it in the mouth for more than 4 cubits would be a Sabbath violation.] .
HALAKHAH: Paragraph. Not only [The Mishnah is anonymous; it is presumed to follow R. Meïr. But R. Meïr in Mishnah 8 states that one may not stand in one domain and act in another; so either the Mishnah is somebody else’s teaching and should not be formulated as anonymous, or one has to emend to “a person may not stand.”] “a person may stand in a private domain and move something in the public domain, in the public domain and move something in the private, on condition that he not move it more than four cubits.” Rav said, a Mishnah says so, “A person may not stand in a private domain and unlock in the public domain, in the public domain and unlock in a private domain unless there was made for him a partition ten hand-breadths high, the words of Rebbi Meïr [Mishnah 10:8.] .”
Rav said, about soot. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about soot [For the unintelligible “soot” read כִּיחוֹ “his phlegm”. This refers to the statement of R. Jehudah in the Mishnah that one may not walk with spittle in his mouth. There are two objections to the formulation of the Mishnah, first that spittle may be swallowed and therefore can be carried in one’s mouth and second that for R. Jehudah the moisture remaining in the mouth still should be counted as spittle; if the Mishnah really meant spittle, R. Jehudah should forbid walking in the public domain to everybody.] , since does not Rebbi Jehudah say, moist fluid creates a connection?
Not only if he stands in a private domain and urinates in the public domain, but even if he stands in the public domain and urinates in the public domain, but if it rolls down into a private domain it is forbidden. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only if he stands in the public domain and urinates in a private domain, but even if he stands in a private domain and urinates in a private domain, but if it rolls down into the public domain it is forbidden. Rebbi Yasa said, this implies in a spout standing in the public domain, ten [hand-breadths] high and four wide [Which therefore is a separate private domain. For “R. Yasa” read “R. Yose.”] , one may not pour water which would roll down and exit.
MISHNAH: A person may not stand in a private domain and drink [Using a cup. If he would bring the cup to drink in the public domain it would be a biblical Sabbath violation; therefore drinking with his body in the public domain is a rabbinic violation.] in the public domain, in the public domain and drink in a private domain, unless he put his head and most of his body there where he drinks; the same holds for a wine press. A person may collect [Using a cup. Since the water is filled in the public domain, the entire transaction is in the public domain (on condition that the place of filling not be within 3 hand-breadths of the roof.)] from a leader lower than ten hand-breadths, and drink [Without a vessel, even within 3 hand-breadths of the roof.)] anywhere from a gutter.
HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 5.] . One understands “in a private domain and drink [Using a cup. If he would bring the cup to drink in the public domain it would be a biblical Sabbath violation; therefore drinking with his body in the public domain is a rabbinic violation.] in the public domain. [Then his body is an extension of the private domain and drinking is transporting the water from public to private domain (or at least looks like transporting and is rabbinically forbidden.)] ” “In the public domain and drink in a private domain,” is his mouth not higher than ten hand-breadths [His mouth is in exempt space and transporting from private to exempt space is not even rabbinically prohibited.] ? There is a difference since it is running off downwards. It was stated [Babli 20b, bottom. Cf. Chapter 2, Notes 60ff.] : A camel whose head and most of its body is inside one force-feeds inside, outside one force-feeds outside. One understands “inside one force-feeds inside.” But “outside one force-feeds outside,” is its mouth not higher than ten hand-breadths [Since the camel’s belly probably also is more than 10 hand-breadths from the ground, the answer given for humans cannot apply. The second part of the baraita cannot be correct.] ?
Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun has contradictory traditions. Did not Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina that any three [hand-breadths] near a partition are like the partition? Explain it if it is outside of three hand-breadths but it is not four wide [This refers to the second part of the Mishnah, drinking from gutters and leaders after a rainstorm. Why does the Mishnah state that from gutters one may drink while standing in the public domain. Even if the gutters are outside the roof, within three hand-breadths they still are considered part of the roof and are private domain. But if they are outside of three hand-breadths in exempt domain they are accessible as long as they do not form a domain by themselves, containing a square of edge length 4 hand-breadths. Cf. Šabbat 1, Note 107.] .
If one inserted a stick, surrounded it by a partition, and threw into it from the public domain. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar says, a case in dispute [In contrast to a similar baraita quoted in the Babli Šabbat 7 a, it is assumed that the top of the stick does not qualify as a domain, it does not contain a square of 4-by-4 hand-breadths, but the partition encloses such an area. The dispute is centered on Rebbi’s assertion that any domain is considered filled to the top (Šabbat Chapter 1, Note 138; also cf. Note 117). Therefore, for him the top of the stick defines a domain since it is extended to cover the entire area within the partition at the level of the stick’s top. For Rebbi and his followers the thrower is liable; for his opponents the thrower is only rabbinically forbidden as throwing from a private domain to karmelit.] . Rebbi Yudan objected: But did we not state [Mishnah Giṭtin 8:3. Cf. Giṭtin 8:3, Notes 48–58. A bill of divorce becomes effective only if it is delivered into the hands (i. e., the ownership) of the wife (Deut. 24:1). This rule is undisputed; why should the Sabbath rule be in dispute?] : “If she was standing on the top of her roof and he threw it to her, as soon as it reached the roof’s airspace she is divorced.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah speaks about a roof with a parapet, after it descended into the airspace of the parapet [The moment the divorce document clears the parapet and would have come to rest if the airspace enclosed by the parapet would be solid matter. But the rules of divorce and of the Sabbath cannot be compared; Giṭtin 8:3, Note 96.] . If there is no parapet, only if it descended into three [hand-breadths] close to the roof since any three [hand-breadths] close to the roof are like the roof.
Rebbi Ḥiyya said, “the same holds for a wine press,” refers to tithes [The remark about a wine-press in Mishnah 5 refers to Mishnah Maˋserot 4:4 where it is stated that one may drink from freshly pressed untithed grape juice if one may return the unused part into the vat. This is now qualified that on the Sabbath one has to be mostly inside the building of the winepress. Babli 99b, Šabbat 11b.] .
[S. Liebermann writes: This paragraph is one of the most incomprehensible in the entire Yerushalmi and I was not able to understand it.] Rebbi Jehudah [The Amora usually referred to as R. Yudan.] says, it is Rebbi Meïr’s who said, one considers the wall as if hollowed out [Reading גָמוּם for גמיס, cf. Šabbat Chapter 11 Note 77. The problem is the statement in the Mishnah that collecting water from the leader coming down from the roof is permitted only within 10 hand-breadths from the ground. It should be permitted at any height since above 10 hand-breadths it is exempt space. Therefore the Mishnah must be R. Meïr’s who might consider the lower end of the leader as an imaginary 4--by-4 hole in the wall which counts as an ideal private domain.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: It is everybody’s opinion if it is inclined ten hand-breadths for three [cubits] [The roof is not flat but inclined at an angle of arcsin(10/18) ~ 18.5°. Then the water does not come to rest on the roof, it still is rainwater, and the rules of Šabbat Chapter 1 Note 106 do apply. In that case he is able to collect the water anywhere. This fits the statement of the Mishnah for the gutters but not for the leaders.] . Rebbi Yose asked, if it is inclined ten hand-breadths for three [cubits], is it not a roof [The roof is not flat but inclined at an angle of arcsin(10/18) ~ 18.5°. Then the water does not come to rest on the roof, it still is rainwater, and the rules of Šabbat Chapter 1 Note 106 do apply. In that case he is able to collect the water anywhere. This fits the statement of the Mishnah for the gutters but not for the leaders.] ? Where are we? There [In the case of the divorce document quoted in the preceding paragraph, it must become the wife’s property. The kinematics of the process are irrelevant. Nevertheless, the document thrown into the wife’s property becomes hers only if it cannot escape from that property, i. e., if either it comes to rest on the property or it moves in a space bounded on all sides by fences higher than the future path of the document.] , where it does not have to come to rest, you say only after it came to rest; here where it is necessary that it come to rest [Since the action of transporting on the Sabbath is complete only if the object transported comes to rest.] , not so much more? Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana, in any case it did not come to rest! He told him, since it is not four [On the slanted roof the raindrops come to rest only in the gutters which do not count as domains. Therefore following the argument of R. Joḥanan in Šabbat Chapter 1 Note 106; the Mishnah must follow R. Meïr; it cannot be everybody’s opinion. The paragraph is incomprehensible since the argument is presen- ted as supporting the opposite conclusion.] wide it is as if it did not come to rest.
MISHNAH: If the railing around a cistern in the public domain is ten hand-breadths high, one may fill from it through a window above it on the Sabbath [Since the space within the enclosure is private domain and the airspace above 10 hand-breadths from the ground is exempt space, it is possible to use one private domain while standing in another private domain if the connection is through exempt space.] . If a dungheap in the public domain is ten hand-breadths high, one may pour waste water onto it through a window above it on the Sabbath.
HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 6.] . Does one not consider depth equal to height [Since a cistern usually is deeper than 10 hand-breadths (a premiss disputed by the Babli 99b), it defines a private domain whether or not it has a railing around. Why does the Mishnah insist on a railing?] ? If its mouth is not wide four [hand-breadths] [If the opening does not contain a square of 4-by-4 hand-breadths it cannot define a domain by itself unless it is walled in by a wall at least 10 hand-breadths high.] . So far if it is blocked in. If it is far away [The cistern is close to the house; even though it is in the public domain its status is karmelit. If it is farther away from the house to be genuine public domain, it needs some action to make it usable from a private domain (disputed by the Babli 99b).] ? Rav and Samuel; one said one puts in a plank; the other said, one plants a stick [The first opinion requires only a token separation, the second a genuine partition, even if hanging from the balcony, of 10 hand-breadths width.] . We did not know who said what. Since Samuel stated, higher than ten [hand-breadths]is rabbinically forbidden [He holds that biblically exempt space still is rabbinically forbidden. Therefore he must need a genuine partition to allow water to be drawn through what otherwise would be exempt space.] , he is the one who said that one puts in a plank.
If they were two [If a cistern was in the public domain and two houses on opposite sides could use its water on the Sabbath.] . Two Amoraim, one said ten [hand-breadths], the other one said four [Following Rav, who in the case of a single house requires only a token partition, does one need a plank of fully 10 hand-breadths in the case of two houses or is a width of 4 hand-breadths sufficient? The numerals all are in the masculine.] . He who said ten objected to the one saying four: Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain? He told him, the public domain annuls [Since the plank is hanging down, the water is drawn through exempt space, which for him is unquestionably permitted. It only is exempt space which uses the cistern below, and this is permitted.] .
MISHNAH: A tree which gives a round shadow [The Babli and Maimonides read מיסך.] on the ground, if its crown is less than three hand-breadths from the ground one may carry under it [If the branches reach close to the ground for more than half the circumference, they define the space under the tree as a private domain.] . One may not put back the door of a shed [It is presumed that the door does not move on hinges but has to be taken off and put back on some hooks. Then it is impossible to move the door without creating an impression in the dirt floor. Since this is a necessary consequence of moving the door, it qualifies as intentional digging, a Sabbath violation. The same argument applies to the other examples in the Mishnah.] , or the thorns in a breach, or a mat, unless they are higher than the ground.
HALAKHAH: [Discussion of Mishnah 7. The domain under a tree becomes private only if the branches are low enough to count as partitions and the entire area under the tree is not more that 5’000 square cubits since it is not fenced in for human dwelling. Chapter 4, Notes 58–60; Babli 99b.] Only it should be no larger than two bet se’ah, or the walls ten [hand-breadths] high, [Šabbat 1, Note 68.] nor the opening wider than ten [cubits], nor what was standing was opposite what was standing and what was breached opposite the breached.
Paragraph [Discussion of the sentence regarding tree roots. The text also is in Beṣah 5:2 (63 a l. 12). The Babli 100a reads the Mishnah differently.] . Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: It is forbidden to (tear off) [trample on] [With the text in Beṣah read לדוש instead of לתלוש. Tearing off branches is agricultural work and biblically forbidden as harvesting.] roots of a vine on the Sabbath. There is no difference between the roots of a [barren] tree or the roots of cabbage. If they are three [hand-breadths] high. But if they are not three [hand-breadths] high they are like the ground.
The Mishnah [Discussion of the sentence about doors (cf. Note 20).] refers to the case that there are no hinges. But if there are hinges that is what was stated [The text is from Šabbat Chapter 5, Notes 32–34. For גודר “fence in” one has to read גורר “drag” with the text in Tosephta 8:12, Šabbat loc. cit., and the quotes by R. Ḥananel (last sentence in his Commentary to Beṣah Chapter 2) and Or zaruaˋ Šabbat §55 (p. 67b) which refer to the last Chapter of Eruvin and read גורר.] : “a hinged door, a hinged mat, hinged lattice gates [A certain water well, not every well.] , one may open and lock on the Sabbath, and it is not necessary to say on a holiday. 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.”
MISHNAH: A person may not stand in a private domain and unlock in the public domain, in the public domain and unlock in a private domain unless there was made for him a partition ten hand-breadths high, the words of Rebbi Meïr [From the rules of the Sabbath it would be possible to take a key in the public domain either from a place not 4 cubits away or above 10 hand-breadths from the ground, open the door, and return the key. R. Meïr forbids, to avoid that the key inadvertently would be brought into the house (private domain) or be moved in the public domain lower than 10 hand-breadths from the ground. It is possible to use a key if the place of use is karmelit or private domain.] . They told him, it happened at the market of the cattle feeders in Jerusalem that they locked up and put the key into the window above the door. Rebbi Yose says, it was the market of the wool vendors [They disagree about the facts of the case, not the underlying practice.] .
HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 8.] . Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Cahana: Practice does not follow Rebbi Jehudah [R. Jehudah is not mentioned in the Mishnah. Since the second mention of R. Jehudah at the end of the paragraph clearly should read “R. Meïr”, one may assume that here also one should read “R. Meïr”.] . Rebbi Abba bar Pappai asked: How did Rebbi Meïr treat the wall, as hollowed out or as pierced? If you say as hollowed out, even higher than ten [hand-breadths] it should be permitted. If you say as pierced, even below ten [hand-breadths] it should be prohibited [The discussion is not about the Mishnah, where R. Meïr requires that the door be entirely part of a private domain, but about the Tosephta quoted in the sequel. If R. Meïr considers any dent in the wall or in the door as a 4-by-4 cavity, this should make no difference if it is more than 10 hand-breadths above the ground since one is permitted to move things from exempt space to karmelit. But if it is considered a hole open on both sides, i. e., connected to and being part of a private domain, then putting the key from the outside into the keyhole would be transporting from the public to a private domain and forbidden.] . “ [Related texts are Tosephta 8:12, Babli 101b.] The door of garden plots which have a gatekeeper’s lodge [Which is not built as a dwelling. In the first part of the Tosephta the door in question is assumed to be between the lodge and the gardens. “From the inside, from the outside” refers to the position of the door-handle which allows to open or close the door from that direction.] , from the inside he opens and locks from the inside; from the outside he opens and locks from the outside; from both sides he opens and locks from both sides; from neither side he takes the key, opens and locks, and returns it to its place. When has this been said? If the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths. But if the lock is lower than ten hand-breadths he takes the key from the threshold, opens and locks, and returns it to its place, the words of Rebbi Meïr [Here is no gatekeeper’s lodge. Since the threshold is karmelit, it follows that the keyhole also is considered karmelit; this proves that R. Meïr treats the keyhole not as part of the private domain.] . But the Sages are saying, even if the lock is higher than ten hand-breadths he brings the key on Friday, opens, enters, and moves it inside the house, locks, and puts it into a hole above the lintel [Since they treat the hole as karmelit (below 10 hand-breadths) or exempt space (above 10 hand-breadths) as long as its real dimensions are less than 4-by-4 handbreadths.] . If the hole was four hand-breadths wide it is forbidden, for one does not use one domain from another domain through a third domain [From public domain through exempt space to private domain.] .” This implies that Rebbi Jehudah treats it as hollowed out [Here is no gatekeeper’s lodge. Since the threshold is karmelit, it follows that the keyhole also is considered karmelit; this proves that R. Meïr treats the keyhole not as part of the private domain.] . One understands that from the inside it needs a gatekeeper’s lodge. Why does it need a gatekeper’s lodge from the outside? Does it not turn out that two domains use one domain [In the first part of the baraita one understands that a gatekeeper’s lodge is needed so that in any case there is no carrying from a private domain to the public one. But from the outside, where the Sages of the Mishnah permit putting the key into a hole above the lintel, why should R. Meïr require an intermediate space? If one assumes that the door opens to the inside, the person standing at the outside has access to the inside through the karmelit represented by the threshold.] ?
MISHNAH: If a bolt is topped by a lock [Latin claustrum, -i, n., Greek κλεῖστρον, τό. Since the bolt with a thick end could also be used as a bludgeon it should qualify as an implement which can be moved freely. Nevertheless R. Eleazar (in the Babli R. Eliezer, unlikely to be correct) forbids unless it be tied to the building since otherwise inserting the bolt would be classified as building.] , Rebbi Eleazar forbids and Rebbi Yose permits. Rebbi Eleazar said, it happened at the synagogue of Tiberias that they used to permit it until Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and forbade it to them. Rebbi Yose says, they used to consider it forbidden when Rabban Gamliel and the Elders came and permitted it to them. With a dragged bolt [It is loosely tied to the building, not noticed to be part of it. It is forbidden to replace a bolt separate from the building and not tied to anything since this would be building.] one locks at the Temple but not in the countryside, but the one left alone is forbidden here and there. Rebbi Jehudah says, the one left alone in the Temple and the dragged one in the countryside.
HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 9.] : Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi [ ] [Clearly there is a name missing there. R. Ḥananel (102a) quotes “Rav Yose” (probably a copyist’s error), Ritba (ad 101a, p. 168a first line): R. Yose bar Abin. Probably the name should ben R. Abun.] said: He who permits makes the bolt an accessory to the lock; he who forbids makes the lock an accessory of the bolt.
[This paragraph is explained in Šabbat Chapter 17, Notes 70–83.] What is a dragged bolt? Rebbi Joḥanan said, tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me one of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the single opinion here is parallel to the anonymous one there, and the anonymous there to the individual here. Rebbi Yose asked before Rebbi Jeremiah: how does one act in actuality? He said to him, since Rebbi Joḥanan said, Ḥilfai pulled me and showed me one of the House of Rebbi tied but not hanging, this implies that one acts following Rebbi Jehudah, except that it be tied to the door. Rebbi Yannai the father-in-law of Rebbi Immi said, only if it is tied to the door by something which can fasten it. Rebbi Eleazar’s bolt was tied with bast. If it was detached it is forbidden; loose? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of the rabbis, he supports it with his finger tips.
Rebbi Abba bar Cahana, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav, practice follows Rebbi Yose.
MISHNAH: One may replace the lower hinge at the Temple but not in the countryside; the upper one is forbidden here and there [Hinges of doors of chests. The lower one does not carry a load and may be inserted without tools or force, at most a rabbinic violation; the upper one which carries the load must be fixed either by being hammered in or fixed with screws, both biblical Sabbath violations.] . One replaces a wound dressing in the Temple [ Since the garments of the priests are biblically prescribed, they cannot wear anything (e. g., shoes) which would be between them and the holy places, vessels, or sacrifices. Therefore the Cohen wearing a bandage must remove it during his period of service. He may replace it in the Temple, where rabbinic restrictions are suspended, but not outside.] but not in the countryside; a new one is forbidden here and there.
HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 11.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not every rabbinic Sabbath prohibition was permitted in the Temple [Since in Mishnah 10 it was stated that only a lower hinge but not an upper one may be replaced in the Temple, it follows that not all rabbinic restrictions are waved in the Temple; practically this means that only those acts which are mentioned in the remainder of the Chapter are authorized.] .
It was stated: A person should not clean a wound dressing [Latin splenium, Greek σπλήνιον, τό.] , to avoid spreading [Smoothing a salve over the wound, which is a derivative of ממחק (Mishnah Šabbat 7:2).] , since he who spreads on the Sabbath is liable for a purification sacrifice. And we have stated: If it [The wound dressing.] slipped below one puts it back from above, if it slipped above one puts it back from below. One may uncover part of the wound dressing and cleanse the wound from the other side, and uncover part of the wound dressing and cleanse the wound from the other side. But one may not cleanse the wound dressing to avoid spreading since he who spreads on the Sabbath is liable for a purification sacrifice.
It was stated: A plaster which was swollen one puts back on the Sabbath. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Only if it was swollen over the wound, as it was stated: If it slipped below one puts it back from above, if it slipped above one puts it back from below on condition that it not leave the entire domain of the wound. [The text from here on is explained in Šabbat Chapter 6, Notes 129–133.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yose: One may put a dressing on a healed wound since it is only protective. Rebbi Abun in the name of the rabbis there: One may put it on a wound on the Sabbath since it is only protective. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, except vine leaves which only are for healing.
Rebbi Ḥuna said, madder is a good root, the more the better. If it has five or seven or nine knots, only if it does not ooze fluid.
One does not recite a verse over a wound quoting the Name; 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? Rebbi Yudan said, one means before he was hurt, the other after he was hurt. What is the Song of the Afflicted? 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.
MISHNAH: One replaces a wound dressing in the Temple [Since the garments of the priests are biblically prescribed, they cannot wear anything (e. g., shoes) which would be between them and the holy places, vessels, or sacrifices. Therefore the Cohen wearing a bandage must remove it during his period of service. He may replace it in the Temple, where rabbinic restrictions are suspended, but not outside.] but not in the countryside; a new one is forbidden here and there. One ties strings [Greek νῆμα, ἡ, “string” of musical instruments. Tying a new string would make an unusable instrument usable; this is biblically forbidden also in the Temple where biblically forbidden work on the Sabbath is only permitted for the explicitly required sacrifices. Making a permanent knot is also biblically forbidden (Mishnah Šabbat 7:2), only making a temporary loop is permitted. Since this leaves the violin unusable, the Mishnah is re-interpreted in the Halakhah.] in the Temple but not in the countryside; a new one is forbidden here and there. One cuts a wart in the Temple [A wart disqualifies an animal as sacrifice (Lev. 22:22); if it developed on the Sabbath and could not have been removed before that day it may be removed as long as no tools are used and therefore biblical desecration of the Sabbath is avoided..] but not in the countryside; using an implement is forbidden here and there.
HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 11.] . “One ties strings [Greek νῆμα, ἡ, “string” of musical instruments. Tying a new string would make an unusable instrument usable; this is biblically forbidden also in the Temple where biblically forbidden work on the Sabbath is only permitted for the explicitly required sacrifices. Making a permanent knot is also biblically forbidden (Mishnah Šabbat 7:2), only making a temporary loop is permitted. Since this leaves the violin unusable, the Mishnah is re-interpreted in the Halakhah.] in the Temple but not in the countryside.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar’s [Differently Babli 102b.] , as Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar stated, if a broken violin string is tied it does not give a sound, but he strings from above and makes a loop below [Babli Taanit 27a, a statement of Samuel.] . It was stated [The Cohanim officiate, the Levites sing, the Israel are the maˋamad, representatives of the people for whom the daily sacrifices are offered. Since the Sabbath sacrifice is a biblical obligation, and musical accompaniment of the Levite’s song is necessary, if there is no replacement violin (or guitar) available, R. Simeon ben Eleazar permits restringing the instrument on the Sabbath. The “one ties strings” in the Mishnah means tying with permanent knots; this contradicts the statement in the Mishnah that new strings are forbidden in the Temple. This latter statement cannot be R. Simeon ben Eleazar’s.] : Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, Cohanim, Levites, Israel, and musical instruments obstruct the sacrifice [Mishnah Pesaḥim 6:1. This does not refer to a Cohen but to the Passover sacrifice; if the 14th of Nisan falls on a Sabbath and the animal selected for the sacrifice unexpectedly develops a wart which makes it unfit as sacrifice, the wart cannot be cut on the Sabbath even if the animal already is in the Temple precinct. The entire paragraph except for the introductory sentence is a slightly defective copy of a text in Pesaḥim 6:1, end (פ).] .
“One cuts a wart at the Temple [A wart disqualifies an animal as sacrifice (Lev. 22:22); if it developed on the Sabbath and could not have been removed before that day it may be removed as long as no tools are used and therefore biblical desecration of the Sabbath is avoided..] but not in the countryside.” There [Mishnah Pesaḥim 6:1. This does not refer to a Cohen but to the Passover sacrifice; if the 14 of Nisan falls on a Sabbath and the animal selected for the sacrifice unexpectedly develops a wart which makes it unfit as sacrifice, the wart cannot be cut on the Sabbath even if the animal already is in the Temple precinct. The entire paragraph except for the introductory sentence is a slightly defective copy of a text in Pesaḥim 6:1, end (פ).] we have stated: “cutting his wart does not push aside;” and here you are saying so? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Rebbi (Pedat) [Pedaya] [The correct text is the one in Pesaḥim, in brackets.] : Because of vitiation of the lotteries [Every week another clan of Cohanim came to serve in the Temple, as described in Yoma Chapter 2. Every day the duties of the service were assigned among the eligible Cohanim by lotteries. One runs into trouble if after a lottery a Cohen turns out to be ineligible since he developed a wart (even though warts are mentioned only for animals, Lev. 22:22).] . Rebbi [Yose] [The name is missing in Eruvin.] said, but only if they drew lots. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said in the name of Levi Sobaya: Whether it can be scraped off or cannot be scraped off [According to him scraping the wart off is forbidden even if it can be done without drawing blood. He must hold that this is a biblical prohibition.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim said, one if it is moist [If the wart cannot be removed without drawing blood. He holds that making a wound on the Sabbath is a biblical prohibition but if the wart can be removed without drawing blood the prohibition is only rabbinical and is waved in the Temple.] , the other if it is dry. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, here by hand, there by implement. It turns out that Rebbi Simeon ben (Yaqim) [Laqish] [The correct text is the one in Pesaḥim, in brackets.] parallels Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina Rebbi Joḥanan, as it was stated [Šabbat Chapter 2, Note 153.] : 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. Rebbi Joḥanan said, only if he needed the blood or the ashes. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases if it is moist, and only if he needs the blood [In Pesaḥim he needs the blood and therefore the prohibition is biblical and cannot be waved; in Eruvin he does not need the blood, the prohibition is rabbinic and is waved. Babli 103a.] .
MISHNAH: A Cohen who has a wound on his finger binds bast on it in the Temple but not in the countryside [The bast is no textile and is permitted. While curing illnesses is rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath and dressing is part of the healing process, it is permitted in the Temple if needed for the service.] ; it there is no blood [In the Babli and Maimonides: If in order to extract blood.] it is forbidden here and there. One sprinkles salt on the ramp [The incline leading from the floor of the Temple court to the top of the altar.] so it should not be slippery and one fills from the cistern of the Diaspora with a wheel on the Sabbath [Which otherwise is rabbinically forbidden since it could lead to agricultural use.] , from the large cistern and from the cold well [A certain water well, not every well.] on a holiday.
HALAKHAH: Paragraph [Discussion of Mishnah 12.] . Jehudah the important [In the Babli 103b he is called Rav Jehudah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya.] said, they only stated “bast” but bingion [This word has not been explained. Perhaps it is Egyptian, appearing in Greek as βύνιτος, ὁ “an Egyptian garment” (E.G.).] is prohibited because of excess clothing [The priestly garments worn in the Temple are defined in Ex. 28:40. Priests are prohibited from wearing anything else while officiating.] . They wanted to say excess of clothing is like deficiency in clothing. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa: Rebbi Ḥanina’s, as Rebbi Ḥanina said, only it should not separate between him and a garment or between garment and garment [Bandages are permitted only on body parts not covered by any priestly clothing.] . In Rebbi Ḥanina’s opinion, what is excess clothing? Two shirts, two turbans, two pants, two belts. If a Cohen was injured on his finger and wound a belt around it; is anything called “belt” inadmissible or only clothing?
It was stated: [Babli 104a with some variations in the spellings of the unexplained words. Tosephta Šabbat 2:8; cf. Tosephta kiFshtutah Sabbath p. 31–32.] “One lifts in a siphon and sprinkles with an ˋedeq for a sick person on the Sabbath.” One lifts in a siphon [Greek διαβήτης, τό. In the Babylonian sources the word appears as דיופי. Producing sound mechanically is rabbinically forbidden on the Sabbath. An exception is made for medical purposes. It is permitted to make a contraption which can be put together without violating any Sabbath rule, which produces a monotonous sound which induces sleep in a sick person. For this one lifts water in a siphon which delivers water into an ˋedeq which according to the Gaonic Commentary to Tahorot (Otzar Hagaonim III, Eruvin, pp. 79,104) is a vessel with an opening on top and capillary holes at the bottom. If the vessel is kept filled steadily and a metal plate is put under it at some distance, the water coming though the capillary holes will create a faint monotonous sound which induces sleep.] , משתמיהה [The word is unexplained (and not listed in the Dictionaries, from Levy to Sokoloff). One may see its root in Arabic סמה “to run steadily” (said of horses).] . And sprinkles with an ˋedeq [In Babylonian sources אדק, ארק. The etymology is unknown.] , some want to say [Meaning and etymology unknown.] עיררה; some want to say, a small water pitcher [Diminutive of Syriac קוקא “water pitcher” (following Sokoloff.)] . [Babli 104a.] In a courtyard where it started to rain and there was a house of mourning or a wedding feast, one takes straw and beats it down [To make it possible for visitors to cross the yard.] on condition that he should not do it on the Sabbath in the way he does it on a weekday. It was stated: One does not fill with a lentil [The name of any ovaloid vessel (cf. Avodah zarah Chapter 5, Note 195).] of the Sabbath. If he is afraid for the rope or the cord it is permitted [If he needs much water and is afraid his old rope will break, he may draw water in a vessel not usually used for the purpose since then this is not done the way one usually does it during the week.] .
[This paragraph is from Chapter 2, Notes 32, 33.] “One fills from the cistern of the Diaspora with a wheel on the Sabbath, from the large cistern and from the cold well on a holiday.” Why “may one fill from the cold well with a wheel on the holiday”? But at the time when Israel came from the diaspora and camped at this well, the prophets among them stipulated that one could fill from the cold well with a wheel on the holiday. They did not permit all cold wells, only this well at which they camped. As you are saying there, what was permitted was permitted, and here what was permitted was permitted.
MISHNAH: If a crawling animal [One of the animals whose carcass is a source of original impurity (Lev. 11:29–30). It has to be removed to avoid spreading impurity. Even though the Cohen’s belt is sanctified, its impurity may be removed by the sundown following its immersion in a miqweh.] was found in the Temple, a Cohen carries it outside in his belt in order not to continue the impurity, the words of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa. Rebbi Jehudah says, with wooden tongs [Wooden implements which do not have a cavity are impervious to impurity.] in order not to increase impurity. From where does one remove it? From the Temple Hall, and the vestibule, and from between the vestibule and the altar, the words of Rebbi Simeon ben Nannas [But at all other places in the Temple court one places a metal pot over it and removes it after the end of the Sabbath.] . Rebbi Aqiba says, from a place where one is liable for extirpation in case of criminal intent and a purification offering if in error one removes it; at all other places one places a wine cooler [Greek ψυκτήρ, -ῆρος. It must be a metal pot whose impurity can be removed in a miqweh, not a clay pot which would have to be broken into pieces.] over it. Rebbi Simeon said, at a place where the Sages permitted it to you they gave it from your own since they only permitted because of rabbinic Sabbath restrictions [Rabbinic leniencies regarding rabbinic restrictions do not necessarily have to follow a logically consistent system.] .
HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “If a crawling animal [One of the animals whose carcass is a source of original impurity (Lev. 11:29–30). It has to be removed to avoid spreading impurity. Even though the Cohen’s belt is sanctified, its impurity may be removed by the sundown following its immersion in a miqweh.] was found in the Temple,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa said to him, did you not prolong the impurity? He answered him, did you not increase impurity? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by him than a prohibition which will come before him [Since no human killed the animal which was found in the Temple, it is better to leave it there for some time than remove it while defiling a priestly garment.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as we have stated there [Mishnah Pesaḥim 3:3. Ḥallah is the heave of bread dough to be given to a Cohen to eat in purity (cf. Introduction to Tractate Ḥallah.) Making food on a holiday is permitted, but baking mazzah on Passover creates a problem if the flour is impure since the ḥallah must be given but may not be eaten; therefore it may not be baked, but then it will get sour and this is forbidden on Passover. R. Eliezer says that ḥallah should be declared not from the dough but from finished mazzah; R. Jehudah ben Bathyra says that it should be refrigerated and then burned in the evening (which is practical only in his mountain town of Nisibis). R. Joshua says that ḥallah should be given as usual and declared the Cohen’s property; then it no longer is the baker’s property and the prohibition (Ex. 13:6) it should not be seen in your property and not be found in your property does not apply.] , “how does one separate ḥallah in impurity on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer says, one should not declare its name until after it was baked. Ben Bathyra says, he should put it into cold water.” Rebbi Joshua said to him, are you not like one who burns sancta on a holiday? Rebbi Eliezer told him, it is burned automatically [Since R. Eliezer does not say that one should not separate ḥallah as dough, only that one may not call it ḥallah, this implies that he prescribes that the ḥallah dough be baked as separate mazzah. If the dough had been declared as ḥallah it would be an impure sanctum which could not be burned (or baked) on the holiday.] . Rebbi Joshua said to him [This should read: They said to R. Joshua.] , are you not transgressing it should not be seen, and it should not be found? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by you than a prohibition which will come before you [R. Joshua to R. Eliezer. The dough will become sour by itself, but R. Eliezer requires one actively to bake the non-food ḥallah.] .
There, we have stated [Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:10. Blood of all animal sacrifices has to be spilled at the walls of the altar. Blood of most holy sacrifices must be given to all 4 corners of the altar; that of simple sacrifices is given in one batch. If blood of different categories is mixed, one can satisfy only one requirement. R. Joshua is consistent in prescribing the minimal action.] : “[Blood] to be given in one batch which was mixed with [blood] to be given in one batch should be given in one batch. That to be given in four batches with that to be given in four batches should be given in four batches. That to be given in four batches with that to be given in one batch, Rebbi Eliezer says, it should be given in four batches. Rebbi Joshua says, it should be given in one batch. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, would you not transgress do not diminish? Rebbi Joshua answered him, would you not transgress do not add?” He said to him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by me than a prohibition which will come before me.
There, we have stated [Mishnah Negaˋim 14:9. A sufferer from skin disease who was healed has to undergo a double process of purification (Lev. 14). A first ceremony outside of town followed by immersion in a miqweh purifies him for all purposes except for entry into the Temple. For complete purification he then has to bring sacrifices (depending on his financial situation); the blood of one of them has to be applied by a Cohen in the Temple precinct to ear, thumb, and great toe, of the healed person who still is forbidden to enter the Temple precinct. The Mishnah which is quoted only in parts reports that anonymous majority solves the puzzle by having the person to be purified present only a minimal surface to the priest inside while R. Jehudah requires him to present all three spots simultaneously. It is agreed that a biblical violation occurs only if head and most of the body of the unpurified person are inside the Temple precinct.] : “He enters his head and he puts on his ear’s cartilage, his hand and he gives on his thumb, his foot,” etc. Rebbi Jehudah’s argument [It seems that for “R. Jehudah” one has to read “the rabbis” and vice versa but there is no manuscript evidence to support this.] is inverted. There he says, it is forbidden to act craftily [This translation of להערים seems to be false but no other meaning is known. Probably S. Liebermann is correct that the sentence is copied here from Pesaḥim 3:3 where it is correctly applied to the positions of RR. Eliezer and Joshua.] , but here he says that it is permitted. There that he should not enter with his head and most of his body and be punishable by extirpation. But here it is because of bringing impure implements on the Sabbath [It seems that for “on the Sabbath” one has to read “into the Temple”. In this comparison of the Mishnah in Negaˋim to that in Eruvin it seems that the rabbis accept the position of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa as practice to be followed. They prefer that the unpurified person enter the Temple precinct space three times to avoid the possibility of his inadvertently entering with most of his body; in Eruvin they prefer the speedy elimination of impurity since the presence of the belt, impure in derivative impurity, while prohibited, is not sanctionable (Maimonides, Biat Miqdash 3:17).] . The argument of the rabbis [It seems that for “R. Jehudah” one has to read “the rabbis” and vice versa but there is no manuscript evidence to support this.] is inverted. There they say, it is permitted to act craftily, but here they say, it is forbidden to act craftily. There that he should not defile himself three times, but here it is a known impurity inside; it is possible for it to be removed immediately. Without impurity [R. Jehudah who in Negaˋim accepts the risk of severe contamination to avoid repeted small contaminations, in Eruvin recommends waiting until the existing impurity can be eliminated without risk of increasing impurity.] ? He told him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by him than a prohibition which will come before him.
If he removed it from a place where one is subject to extirpation for it and it fell into a place where one is not subject to extirpation for it, already it is subject to removal [If the dead crawling animal was removed from the Temple precinct but fell down on the Temple Mount where it remains a danger to people coming to the Temple in purity, it is to be removed to a place outside of the city.] . If he found another next to it, does he remove both of them or only the one subject to removal [If the second animal is not on the list of Lev. 11:29–30 and therefore does not cause original impurity. The question is not answered.] ?
“He used to say, a wrench is made by a wrench. How was the first wrench made? It was created. [Tosephta Eruvin 8:23 and Ḥagigah1:9, quoted here as commentary to the statement of R. Simeon in Mishnah 14, that rabbinic Sabbath restrictions do not have biblical justification and do not necessarily follow a system. The statement which denies technical invention to human intelligence is attributed to R. Jehudah in Mishnah Avot 5:6; the statement here also is in the name of R. Jehudah in Sifry §355 (ed. Finkelstein p. 418), Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai ad Ex. 16:32 (ed. Epstein-Melamed p. 115), Babli Pesaḥim 54a. However at other places both Talmudim characterize human invention as “knowledge of heavenly kind”; cf. Babli loc. cit., Yerushalmi Berakhot 8:6, Note 128 (and the author’s The Scholar’s Haggadah, pp. 220–221).] ” Rebbi Ḥanina said before Rebbi Mana: How do you explain this? From one wrench they learned many wrenches; from one Sabbath prohibition they learned many Sabbath prohibitions. [One rabbinic Sabbath prohibition will have prophetic roots; the others were introduced by successive generations.] ”