Shabbat1

1MISHNAH: There are two [kinds] of transport on the Sabbath which are four [kinds] inside, and two [kinds] which are four [kinds] outside [On the Sabbath it is forbidden to move any load from a private to the public domain (or for a distance of at least 4 cubits in the public domain.) Inside a private domain there are no restrictions unless the article may not be moved at all. While any transport between domains is forbidden, it is a prosecutable offense only if there is a completed action, i. e., one person lifted the item up, transported it, and put it down. This applies both to transport from the private domain to the public one (“inside”) and vice versa (“outside”). In each case, the transport may be effectuated either by the person inside or the person outside (in which case the person is prosecutable but the person standing in the other domain is not involved) or it may be taken up by one person, taken over while moving by another person who then puts it down. In this case both participants have sinned but are not prosecutable. The possible cases are enumerated in Mishnaiot 1–4. “Liable” and “not liable” refer both to the possibility of prosecution for intentional Sabbath desecration and the obligation of a purification sacrifice in the case of unintentional infraction.] . How is this? The poor man stands outside and the householder inside. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and delivered into the householder’s hand or took something from it and brought it outside, the poor man is liable but the householder is not liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and delivered into the poor man’s hand or took something from it and brought it inside, the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable. If the poor man stretched out his hand inside and the householder took from it or gave into it and he then took it out, neither is liable. If the householder stretched out his hand outside and the poor man took from it or gave into it and he then took it in, neither is liable.

2HALAKHAH: [For this and the following paragraphs there exists a reasonably complete Genizah text (G) edited by L. Ginzberg (שרידי ירושלמי New York 1909 p. 62). A slightly garbled parallel is in Ševuot 1:1, explained there in Notes 5–20. The Notes here are restricted to references and short explanations.] “Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following [Mishnah Ševuot 1:1.] : “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability [For R. Abba, there is a difference between the Mishnaiot in Šabbat and Ševuot in that in the case here at least one person involved always is not liable whereas in Ševuot only one person is mentioned and all cases are of liability. For R. Yose, the parallel is only that of Mishnaiot 1–2, not 3–4. Each Mishnah describes two cases of liability; these are two covering in all four cases of liability as in Ševuot 1:1.] . This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated [Mishnah Middot 4:1. The Mishnah is purely descriptive of the construction of Herod’s Temple; the notions of liability or no liability are inappropriate.] , “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability [There are four cases in the Mishnah where one party is liable and the other is not involved. Then there are four cases in which both parties are involved but nobody is criminally liable. One might construct another four cases where nobody is liable; e. g., if the poor man reaches into the house, picks something up, which the householder then takes from his hand and deposits outside.] ? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted [Since in Mishnaiot 1–2 only one person acts, it is inappropriate to apply the label “not liable” to the other person. Babli 2b/3a.] ! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two [In G, Ševuot 1:1, editio princeps, and a quote in RITBA Ševuot 1:1: “Taking out or bringing in are two but the Sages counted them as one.” As noted later in this paragraph, taking out is called work by Jeremiah (which cannot be used as a legal text but is confirmation of the interpretation of the law) whereas bringing in is only forbidden by the argument that taking out from A to B is bringing in to B from A.] . Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable [Even an intrinsic liability can be prosecuted only if a minimal amount was transported, which for food is determined as the size of a dried fig (Chapters 7–8). Since taking out and bringing in small quantities are to be combined, taking out and bringing in are representatives of one and the same action, viz., transporting.] . And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan [In Ševuot 1:1 and the Babli (6b): R. Joḥanan; quoted without attribution by R. Ḥananel Šabbat 3b; in a number of Medieval sources R. Jonathan.] understood it from the following [Ex. 36:6. Babli 96a.] : Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah [Missing in Ševuot. In G, R, Aḥa in the name or R. Ila; in Sefer Haˋittim (ed. Mekize Nirdamim p. 300) R. Aḥa in the name of R. Ḥiyya. In Sefer Miṣwot Gadol #65, (part 1, fol. 17a in Venice edition) R. Ḥiyya in the name of R. Aḥa.] in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following [Jer. 17:22.] : do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

3[For this and the next paragraph there also exists an additional Genizah text (ג) also edited by L. Ginzberg, loc. cit. p. 64.] Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one brought in half a dried fig and took out half a dried fig he is liable [Here and in the following, “liable” only refers to the obligation to bring a purification sacrifice in case of unintentional infraction of the Sabbath rules. Since an intentional sin cannot be atoned for by a sacrifice (Num. 16:30), a sacrifice is possible only if the perpetrator was oblivious either of the fact that the act was forbidden or, in the case of the Sabbath, that the day was a Sabbath. Sins committed during different periods of oblivion require different sacrifices. In addition, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath is not a single prohibition but, as explained in Chapter 7, a set of 39 different prohibitions, each with different minima of forbidden work which trigger the obligation of a sacrifice. Minimal infractions of different prohibitions do not combine to produce the obligation of a sacrifice. On the other hand, infractions which are subsumed under the same prohibition, even if one is clearly biblically prohibited (אַב מְלָאכָה “a master work” such as transporting from a private to the public domain) and one which is classified by a logical argument as belonging to the same class (תּוֹלְדָה “a derivative”, as transporting to the private domain) do combine to create the obligation of a sacrifice.] . What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose [The Tanna, ben Ḥalafta, the greatest authority of the fourth generation of Tannaim.] , as it was stated [Babli 80b, Bava batra 55b, Keritut17a. The first part is a Tosephta, ed. Liebermann 9:11, ed. princeps 10:7.] : “If one took out half a dried fig and again took out half a dried fig during one period of oblivion, he is liable; during different periods of oblivion he is not liable. Rebbi Yose said, during one period of oblivion and one domain he is liable, during one period of oblivion and two domains or during two periods of oblivion and one domain he is not liable. [Since transporting has three components, lifting in one domain, removing to another, and depositing in the other domain, for R. Yose they cannot be combined unless all three components are the same (within one period of oblivion.)] ” We find this difficult. If two different transorts do not combine following Rebbi Yose, a fortiori also not bringing in and taking out [The argument is not convincing since transporting into is a derivative of transporting from. R. Yose still could hold that the actions combine to create liability if the domains involved are the same.] ? Therefore what Rebbi Joḥanan said could not follow Rebbi Yose.

4Rebbi Ila said, not only if two doors open to two public roads [Greek πλατεῖα (sc., ὁδός) “a wide (road)”, equivalent of Hebrew רְחוֹב.] but even if they open to the same public road will Rebbi Yose agree [Since it is assumed that each private house has only one door to the street, there are two different private domains involved; the transgressions do not combine for R. Yose.] , for Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability [Different domains from which transport starts or where transport ends are like different periods of oblivion for which no common purification sacrifice is possible by biblical standards.] . Just as Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability so Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability [Clearly the correct text is that of G: “Just as Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in matters of liability so Rebbi Yose compares domains to periods of oblivion in absence of liability.” The fact that incomplete actions in two different periods of oblivion do not combine to create the liability (or possibility) of a sacrifice is only a corollary to the statement that all infractions of the same kind committed during the same period of oblivion are atoned for by one single sacrifice.] . For if he took out the volume of a dried fig through this door and the volume of a dried fig through that door in one period of oblivion is he not liable twice [For R. Yose, who negates the possibility of any sacrifice if the amounts each time are insufficient. For the anonymous majority, the situation is the opposite; two transports of insufficient quantities from two domains combine to create liability for a sacrifice but transports of greater quantities from different domains in one period of oblivion are atoned for by a single sacrifice.] ?

5[This paragraph and the next also appear in Horaiot 3:3 (Notes 66–72) in a different context. (R. Yose mentioned there is the fifth generation Amora).] Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Yose compares domains to eating slices [This refers to sacrifices due for eating forbidden food. Since purification sacrifices are due only for transgressions punishable at least by extirpation (Mishnah Horaiot 3:7), the only example of such solid food is forbidden fat. A sacrifice for inadvertent consumption of forbidden fat is due if at least the volume of an average olive was eaten in the time needed to eat a slice of bread. The slice is defined (Tosephta Negaˋim 7:10) as half a loaf when three loaves are baked from a kav of flour (about 35 cl)] . For if one ate the volume of half an olive during the time needed to eat one slice and another volume of half an olive in the time needed to eat another slice, is he not free from liability? If one ate several volumes of olives during several times needed to eat a slice in one period of forgetting, he is liable only once.

6[Cf. Horaiot 3:3 Note 70. The rabbis of Caesarea object to comparing the rules of the Sabbath to any other biblical prohibition. Mishnah 13:1 states that weaving is forbidden and the threshold for an action requiring a purification sacrifice is weaving two threads. For the majority, weaving two threads in one oblivion triggers the obligation of a sacrifice, for R. Yose only if the two rows were added to the same piece of cloth.] The rabbis of Caesarea say, before you compare this to fat, compare it to the rules of Sabbath itself. For if one was weaving one thread on this piece of cloth and weaving one thread on that piece of cloth, is he not free from liability? If he wove several threads on several pieces of cloth in one period of oblivion he is liable only once.

7Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The one who takes out is not liable until he put it down [As explained in Note 1, the Sabbath is desecrated only by a complete action, lifting up, transporting from one domain to another, and depositing. If the last act is missing, there was no punishable desecration. The tradent R. Yose is the fifth generation Amora.] . Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down [This is a necessary clarification of the preceding statement. Not only must there be a complete action, but all three parts must be executed with the intent to perform the action. In Ex. 35, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath is repeated (vv. 1–3) as part of the commandment to build the Tabernacle (vv. 4–35). In 35:33, the construction of the Tabernacle is described as “thinking work”. It is concluded that only “thinking work” is punishable (criminally or by a sacrifice) as desecration of the Sabbath. In the special case of transporting, there is desecration only if the three parts are done with compatible intent, if the lifting up was intended to be followed by a putting down.] . Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down [It is perfectly legitimate to take food to eat in the domain where it was at the start of the Sabbath. If the first stage of a transport was executed in a perfectly permitted way based on a true thought, it never can become the first leg in a criminal transport. While the change of intent and the following action were forbidden and sinful, there can be no criminal or sacrificial liability attached to them. (As statement of R. Joḥanan himself, Babli 5b, Eruvin 20b, Ketubot 31a).] . What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated [An anonymous baraita following the statement here attributed to R. Yose is Tosephta 9:11(ed. S. Liebermann); the first part Babli 80a. Since in the public domain one is only permitted to move things by a distance of less than four cubits, things farther away are as in two different domains. If each transport was less that a minimal amount, the actions cannot be combined.] : “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose [The Tanna, ben Ḥalafta, the greatest authority of the fourth generation of Tannaim.] said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down [Later in the Halakhah and in the Babli (5b, 91b, Eruvin 98a, Ketubot 31b) this opinion is attributed to Ben Azzai, a generation before R. Yose. It is agreed by everybody that standing still while transporting an object is legally putting it down, not on the ground but on the static person. This is the same as depositing the object on a pillar. R. Yose holds that a slow motion such as walking is the equivalent of standing still for a negligible time at many places. An action which does not result in instant deposition is throwing. According to R. Yose, if the second object ever was within 4 cubits of the place where the first was deposited, the two actions combine for liability, even if the second was ultimately deposited somewhere else.] . Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability [If the object is considered deposited the moment it was taken out of a private domain by a walking person, then any subsequent motion is a new transport. Since R. Yose (Note 44) only considers combining transports if they originate and terminate in the same domains, the fact that later the second object was transported over the first should be irrelevant.] . Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door] [Added from G and ג.] , as it was stated [Since transporting has three components, lifting in one domain, removing to another, and depositing in the other domain, for R. Yose they cannot be combined unless all three components are the same (within one period of oblivion.)] , “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first [For the anonymous Tanna the final place of deposit determines liability; for R. Yose there is no liability if the two paths never were within 4 cubits of one another.] .

8There [Mishnah Keritut 3:4.] , we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was a Sabbath and he carried it out [As noted before, a purification offering is possible only for transgressions punishable at least by extirpation. The Mishnah gives an example that a single act may trigger the obligation of 4 purification and one reparation offerings. An impure person who eats a piece of well-being offering (Lev. 7:20) which is fat (v.25) and more than 2 days old (v. 18) on the Day of Atonement (23:29). For the illicit use of a sanctum a reparation sacrifice is due (5:15–16). R. Meïr adds that if the day also was a Sabbath and the person would take the piece in a private domain, carry it out and eat it in the public domain, an additional purification offering is needed. The text and R. Yudan’s explanation make it clear that the Yerushalmi does not read with some Babli sources “carried it out in his mouth.”] . They told him, it is not the category [The five sacrifices are due for eating one piece; the Sabbath infraction would be for carrying. S. Liebermann explains אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם as “is not simultaneous.”] .” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down [Eating may also be done while walking; the Sabbath infraction becomes a liability only when the motion stopped.] . Who is “they said to him”? Rebbi Yose [There is no other reference to the fact that the objection to R. Meïr originates with the Tanna R. Yose.] ! The argument of Rebbi Yose is inverted. There, he does not consider the person walking equal to one who was putting down but here he is considering the person walking equal to one who was putting down [This argument may support Liebermann’s interpretation. Since for R. Yose a person walking is considered stopping at every place, the Sabbath infraction and the desecration of the sacrifice are simultaneous.] ! Rebbi Yudan said, explain it that he was laying on the threshold [An Accadic word (askuppum). The word describes not only the threshold but also the stairs leading from the road to the house. [Also cf. Latin scapus “post or newel of a circular staircase; main stile of a door on which it hinges” (E. G.)]] partially inside, his mouth outside, when he stretched out his hand, took it, and ate it. Then he did not walk [If the piece of fat was lying inside the private domain, the Sabbath violation did not involve any movement of his body; the reference to R. Yose’s opinion about transporting on the Sabbath is irrelevant, as is the explanation given in the preceding sentence. The difference in the status of the required sacrifices is as indicated in Note 62.] .

9Rebbi Yannai said, one who swallowed half the volume of an olive, then threw it up, and again swallowed it, is liable [In the Babli, Ḥulin 103b, statement and supporting argument are by R. Assi (Yasa) in the name of R. Joḥanan. The food swallowed is supposed to be forbidden fat.] . But one who brought in half the volume of a dried fig and took it out again, is not liable [This is not the situation discussed in Note 32 where half a fig was brought in and half a fig taken out; in all a whole fig was transported. But here the same half fig was transported twice; neither transport created liability.] . What is the difference between this and the first one? There his palate enjoyed the volume of an olive, but here he never dealt with a full volume of a fig. Rebbi Yose said, sometimes a person may be dealing with a full volume of a fig and not be liable. How is this possible? He took out half of the volume of a dried fig [Here starts a new Genizah leaf (G), also edited by L. Ginzberg, loc. cit. p. 65.] , put it down, again took out half of the volume of a dried fig, but did not manage to put it down before the first one was burned. He was dealing with a full volume of a fig but is not liable [In the Tosephta 9:11 (ed. Liebermann): “If the first half was eaten before the second came to rest he is not liable, whether in one or in two periods of oblivion.” As explained earlier, quantities less than the minimum trigger liability only if they exist together. The statement is referred to as obvious in the Babli, 80a.] . Because he compared it to forbidden fat he contrived this [This is R. Yose’s explanation of R. Yannai’s statement. Since for fat a single half olive can create liability, there is good reason to formulate R. Yannai’s rule in the way indicated. For the Sabbath, R. Yannai’s statement is unnecessary; it is formulated purely as companion piece to the statement about fat.] .

10Rebbi Joḥanan said, if one exports from a private domain to the public domain through karmelit [Karmelit is a part of the public domain not readily accessible to the public (Chapter 13 Note 68). The two main examples are “the sides of a thoroughfare”, the part of a street close to the houses if that part is not easy to use because of stairs extending from the houses or if the fronts of the houses do not form a straight line. The other is “valley”, a rural access path which is public domain, not a thoroughfare but meant only as a path for farmers working adjacent fields. Since karmelit is not a thoroughfare (defined as road of at least 16 cubits width) it does not qualify as public domain for which transport from a private domain is forbidden. The statement of R. Joḥanan implies that he cannot consider walking as equivalent of standing still (Note 56) since transporting from a private domain to karmelit followed by transport from karmelit to public domain, while forbidden on the Sabbath, does not generate liability (Note 81). (The etymology of the word karmelit is unknown. Cf. Accadic karmiš “like a ruin”.)] , he is liable because of him who carries on his back [Because of the argument presented in the next sentence about the difference of carrying a load in front or back.] , from the following: [Mishnah 10:4.] “One who intends to carry on his front but it turns out that he carried on his back is not liable. On his back and he carried on his front he is liable. [If a person carries valuables, he will want to carry them on his front so as to be in control. If then it happens that he carried them on his back, his action does not actualize his intentions; it does not qualify as “thinking work” (Note 52) and does not trigger liability. But if he intended to carry the load on his back but in fact carried it on his front, he is more in control than he intended; such an improvement qualifies as “thinking work”.] ” For it is impossible that between him and the wall should not karmelit be created [A person standing close to that wall in the public domain in any case creates karmelit around himself since he bars the access of others to this place. This is formulated in 10:2 as “nothing movable in the public domain creates karmelit except a human.”] . Rebbi Yose said, explain it that his face was turned to the wall and his load on his back and so [Instead of “and so” G reads “already”, which results in a smoother text. The person exited the house backwards.] his load exited first. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba [G reads: Ada. This reading is the only one possible since R. Ḥiyya bar Abba lived several generations before R. Mana II.] asked before Rebbi Mana: But this is not a usual way of carrying out [Work done כִּלְאַחַר יָד “as if with the back of one’s hand” is not “thinking work” and does not create liability.] ! He told him, professional porters act in this way. But the following implies it, as Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Maisha said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold. [Mishnah 10:2. “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold, whether he or somebody else carries them to the street there is no liability since it was not done in one action.”] ” Is the threshold not karmelit [If the door is open, the threshold belongs to the house; if it is closed it is part of the public domain.] ? Rebbi Yose was sorry that he had not said this himself.

11Rav Huna in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for throwing one is liable [One continues the discussion of transporting from a private to the public domain or vice-versa through a karmelit region. In the Babli (6a), it is a statement of R. Joḥanan.] . It is everybody’s opinion that the air space over karmelit is not like its essence. Where do they disagree? If one carries out. Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai makes the person walking as if he was putting down [Later in the Halakhah and in the Babli (5b, 91b, Eruvin 98a, Ketubot 31b) this opinion is attributed to Ben Azzai, a generation before R. Yose. It is agreed by everybody that standing still while transporting an object is legally putting it down, not on the ground but on the static person. This is the same as depositing the object on a pillar. R. Yose holds that a slow motion such as walking is the equivalent of standing still for a negligible time at many places. An action which does not result in instant deposition is throwing. According to R. Yose, if the second object ever was within 4 cubits of the place where the first was deposited, the two actions combine for liability, even if the second was ultimately deposited somewhere else.] but the Sages do not make the person walking as if he was putting down. Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Huna: In Ben Azzai’s opinion nobody ever could become liable for four cubits! Since when he transported something, it is made [In G: “It is considered as if”.] as if he put it down within every cubit; he should be not liable [This refers to a person carrying in the public domain. It is a desecration of the Sabbath to carry a load nonstop for at least 4 cubits in the public domain. Since for Ben Azzai every step in walking is considered a stop, it is impossible to carry anything nonstop for 4 cubits. The objection is left without any answer in the Leiden ms., G, and the lengthy quote in Sefer Haˋittim (p. 307). But in Tosaphot (5b, s.v. בשלמא) the Yerushalmi is quoted as answering that a person still could become liable by jumping.] .

12Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Everybody agrees that for carrying out one is not liable. It is everybody’s opinion that walking counts as if one was putting down. Where do they disagree? If one is throwing, for Ben Azzai declares him not liable but the Sages declare him liable. Ben Azzai considers the air space over karmelit like its essence [In this interpretation, which has no parallel in the Talmudim, anything in the airspace over a karmelit is considered lying there.] but the Sages consider the air space over karmelit not like its essence.

13A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rav Huna [It would seem obvious that the names “Huna” and “Jehudah” should be switched. But the attributions are identical in the Leiden ms., G, and the lengthy quote in Sefer Haˋittim (p. 307).] : [A similar text is in Tosephta 10:1 (ed. Liebermann).] If he was standing in the public domain and threw over karmelit into a stable or corral, he is liable; but if he carried it he is not liable. A baraita supports Rebbi Jehudah: [Mishnah 10:2. “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold, whether he or somebody else carries them to the street there is no liability since it was not done in one action.”] “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step [As noted before, the work of transporting consists of lifting, moving, and depositing. If this is done from private to public domain, it is a desecration of the Sabbath. But a combination of two actions, both involving karmelit and therefore not creating liability, still does not create liability.] he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if be completed the work at one time he would not be liable. But did we not state: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was Sabbath and he carried it out [As noted before, a purification offering is possible only for transgressions punishable at least by extirpation. The Mishnah gives an example that a single act may trigger the obligation of 4 purification and one reparation offerings. An impure person who eats a piece of well-being offering (Lev. 7:20) which is fat (v.25) and more than 2 days old (v. 18) on the Day of Atonement (23:29). For the illicit use of a sanctum a reparation sacrifice is due (5:15–16). R. Meïr adds that if the day also was a Sabbath and the person would take the piece in a private domain, carry it out and eat it in the public domain, an additional purification offering is needed. The text and R. Yudan’s explanation make it clear that the Yerushalmi does not read with some Babli sources “carried it out in his mouth.”] . They told him, it is not the category [The five sacrifices are due for eating one piece; the Sabbath infraction would be for carrying. S. Liebermann explains אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם as “is not simultaneous.”] .” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down. In the opinion of Rav Huna one is not following Ben Azzai [Since practice follows the opinion of those who “said to him” in Mishnah Keritut3:4, for Rav Huna it is clear that walking is not considered depositing.] . In the opinion of Rav Jehudah one follows neither Ben Azzai nor the Sages [Since for Rav Jehudah everybody agrees that walking is considered depositing according to everybody, those who “said to him” seem to be nonexistent.] . Rebbi Ḥinena said, who is :they said to him”? The Sages who follow Ben Azzai. [The Tanna R. Yose as explained earlier.]

14Rebbi Joḥanan asked: If he was standing in the public domain, threw, and then caught it, what [Transporting something in the public domain for a distance of at least 4 cubits is a desecration of the Sabbath. Therefore, throwing something a distance of at least 4 cubits creates liability the moment the thrown object touches the ground. The question is whether there is liability if the thrower himself runs and catches the object in the air, at a distance of at least 4 cubits from where it was thrown. Babli 5a.] ? Is that not a Mishnah [Mishnah 11:7. The thrower did not intend to throw it to another person or to a dog; the object was intercepted. Therefore, the original intent was not fulfilled; there is no liability. If the object was burned in flight, there is no putting down; the action is incomplete and there is no liability even if the original intent was that it should be burned in flight.] , “if another person caught it, a dog caught it, or it was burned, he is not liable”? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: So it is if he snatches; therefore if he caught it he is liable [In the question asked by R. Joḥanan one has to distinguish whether the original intent was that the object should be caught in flight, when there is liability, or whether the object was snatched in flight against the original intent, when there is no liability.] . What is the difference between its coming to rest on the ground to coming to rest in his arm? There [In the Mishnah there is liability if the object is a ball thrown from one person to another and the recipient is supposed to catch the ball.] , why is he liable? There he threw and another one received it but here he threw, he received it [The Mishnah does not directly address R. Joḥanan’s problem.] . Should it be obvious for him that he is not liable? Would he not be liable because of his mouth [This refers to the explanation given earlier by R. Yudan (Note 67) which shows that receiving an object in his mouth is a valid putting down.] if he threw with his right hand and received with his left? Is his mouth not like another person? Here, his left hand should be like another person [And the legal situation depends on the original intent.] . Rebbi Yudan said, it is obvious to Rebbi Joḥanan that he is liable if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. What was his problem? If he threw with his right and and received with his right hand [Throwing from one hand to the other is a normal action but throwing with one hand and receiving with the same has to be classified “as if with the back of one’s hand” (Note 80) and automatically exclude liability.] . The rabbis of Caesarea, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: He [R. Joḥanan.] is in doubt whether he is liable even if he threw with his right hand and received with his left. If you want to say “his mouth [This refers to the explanation given earlier by R. Yudan (Note 67) which shows that receiving an object in his mouth is a valid putting down.] ”, his mouth is like another person since he ate it; but is here his hand like another person [Does it make any difference which hand is used since it always is the same person?] ? Rebbi Mana asked, if this be so, then even if he exported the volume of a dried fig in both hands he should be not liable because of one action executed by two persons [Therefore it is not possible to distinguish between hands in these matters.] ! Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said to him, is that when he did it [Lev. 4:27. The verse is emphatic that purification sacrifices are available only for single perpetrators acting in error: If one person of the people of the land sin in error, if he act in one of the commandments of the Eternal which is a prohibition, and be damaged.] ? But was it not stated: An individual who acted is liable, two or three who acted are not liable [Babli 3a,5a; Sifra Wayyiqra I Parashah 7(9).] .

15Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody was standing in the public domain, collected rain from the airspace of walls and carried it out, he is liable. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira, it is so if he grabbed it, but if he collected it he is not liable [The statement of R. Joḥanan is made more precise. If somebody opens his hands to collect raindrops, the rain falls into his hand; he does not lift it. Therefore, if he then moves the rain water in his hand, the motion is not complete; he cannot be liable. It must be that he collects the water actively, by wiping it off a wall or a roof. If then he moves away, the motion is complete and he is liable. Babli 5a.] . What is the difference between whether another person gave him or if Heaven gave? It follows Rebbi, for Rebbi made the airspace of walls like their substance [This really refers to another situation. If he stands in a room enclosed by 4 walls, for Rebbi anything which enters the airspace of this enclosure is as if it was at rest on the floor. Therefore anything received in his hand is as if taken up from the floor.] .

16If he was standing inside and his hand full of produce was stretched to the outside when the day became holy he is forbidden to take it back [He was in a private domain, his hand stretched out to the public domain, and remained so at sundown of Friday evening. Then the situation is as described in Mishnah 2.] . Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba: following him who said that it is forbidden to use the space below ten [hand-breadths] [Since the numerals are masculine they refer to hand-breadths (טְפָחִים). While in theory private domain extends to an unlimited height, the public domain extends only to a height of 10 hand-breadths. Anything higher is מְקוֹם פְּטוֹר “exempt space”, where unlimited motion and unlimited transfer to private domain is permitted. Therefore the baraita must assume that the outstretched hand was within 10 hand-breadths from the ground.] . There are Tannaim who state, it is permitted. They wanted to say, he who says it is permitted if there was four [cubits] of space; but he who says it is forbidden if there was not four [cubits] of space [A room of less that four-by-four cubits is karmelit, not a private domain. Babli 3b.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in both cases (it is forbidden) [The word, missing in G, must be deleted as a scribal error since it contradicts the statement which follows.] it follows him who said that it is forbidden to use the space below ten [hand-breadths]. What about it? He who says it is forbidden below ten [hand-breadths]; he who says it is permitted, above ten [hand-breadths] [Babli 3b.] .

17Mishnah: “The poor man is liable but the householder is not liable.” Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Only if the poor man’s hand is within ten hand-breadths from the ground [Since otherwise he transports from a private to an exempt domain which does not create liability, Note 109. The quote of the Mishnah is from Mishnah 1. But from the discussion it seems that here starts the discussion of Mishnah 2, “the householder is liable but the poor man is not liable,” since R. Zeˋira makes a difference whether the poor man receives the item in karmelit or not. But R. Zeˋira must follow R. Joḥanan that carrying through karmelit does not relieve from liability if the object was lifted in a private and deposited in a public domain. But if the householder lifts an object in his house and deposits it in karmelit, he is not liable. This also applies if the poor man is standing close to the house with his face to the house; he stands in karmelit (S. Liebermann).] . Rebbi Zeˋira said, if he is distant four [hand-breadths] from the wall. But if he is not distant four [hand-breadths] from the wall, it is karmelit [Karmelit is a part of the public domain not readily accessible to the public (Chapter 13 Note 68). The two main examples are “the sides of a thoroughfare”, the part of a street close to the houses if that part is not easy to use because of stairs extending from the houses or if the fronts of the houses do not form a straight line. The other is “valley”, a rural access path which is public domain, not a thoroughfare but meant only as a path for farmers working adjacent fields. Since karmelit is not a thoroughfare (defined as road of at least 16 cubits width) it does not qualify as public domain for which transport from a private domain is forbidden. The statement of R. Joḥanan implies that he cannot consider walking as equivalent of standing still (Note 56) since transporting from a private domain to karmelit followed by transport from karmelit to public domain, while forbidden on the Sabbath, does not generate liability (Note 81). (The etymology of the word karmelit is unknown. Cf. Accadic karmiš “like a ruin”.)] . Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Simeon Karsanah: If his face was turned towards the public road [Greek πλατεῖα (sc., ὁδός) “a wide (road)”, equivalent of Hebrew רְחוֹב.] . But if his face was turned towards the wall it is karmelit.

18Rebbi Ḥisda in the name of Ashi [As shown by G and the quote later in this Chapter (Note 170) one has to read: Rav Ḥisda in the name of Assi.] : If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable [As explained later in this paragraph, the top of the stick must be at least four-by-four hand-breadths wide. Since the public domain extends only to a height of ten hand-breadths, the airspace is available for the creation of other domains. A surface of less than four-by-four hand-breadths is not usable; but if it has the minimal size it creates a new private domain and all the prohibitions of transport to and from a public domain do apply. If the surface area is less than the required minimum it is exempt space and all transports to and from it do not create liability; cf. Note 170. Babli 5a, 101a, Eruvin 33b.] . Rav said, a leather container [In Mishnah Kelim 24:5, the sources read תרבוס which the Geonic Commentary explains as دُرج “box (for money or jewels)”; the translation follows Maimonides who defines it as a leather box (more appropriate for the text of the Mishnah).] which stands in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and four wide; anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable. Rebbi Hoshaia stated [Tosephta (ed. Liebermann) 10:7.] : “A candelabra which stands in the public domain, ten hand-breadths high and its flower four [wide]; anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable.” Rebbi Mana said, not only a candelabra but even a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high with a tablet [Latin tabula. Cf. Erubin 3(3) (21a line 30).] fixed to its head, anybody who uses anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it is liable.

19[A copy of this paragraph, closer to the original, is in Sukkah 1:1 (ס) 51d l. 56. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Sukkah 5a. Since the entire discussion is Amoraic, one must conclude that for earlier times the limitation of the public domain to 10 hand-breadths from the ground was tradition not subject to verification from biblical sources.] From where that higher than ten [hand-breadths] is a different domain? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There I shall make My Appearance to you, and I shall speak to you from above the cover (which is on the Ark of the Covenant)from between the two Cherubim [Ex. 25:6. The words in parentheses are not in the verse and not in ס; they are added to indicate that the argument is about the Ark.] . And it is written, you have seen that from Heaven I spoke to you [Ex. 20:22.] . Since speech mentioned there is from another domain, also speech mentioned here is from another domain. But is the Ark not nine hand-breadths [1.5 cubits (Ex. 25:10).] ? In the House of Rebbi Yannai they said, the cover was one hand-breadth [In the Babli, Sukkah 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit) (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined. If we take a small hand-breadth of 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm). Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of almost 1.9 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.] . Rebbi Zeˋira asked, from where that the cover was one hand-breadth? Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Samuel stated, for all the vessels in the Sanctuary the Torah gave the measure of length and width, and gave the measure of its height. Except for the cover where the Torah gave the measure of length and width, but did not give the measure of its height. Therefore we shall learn it from the smallest vessel in the Sanctuary, you shall make for it a frame of one hand-breadth all around [In the Babli, Sukkah 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit) (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined. If we take a small hand-breadth of 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm). Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of almost 1.9 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.] . Since there it was one hand-breadth, so also here one hand-breadth. But maybe it is only make a golden wreath as its frame all around [In the Babli, Sukkah 5b, this is questioned but in the end accepted. The biblical data do not fit the assertion. The cover was square of surface area 3.75(cubit) (Ex. 25:17). The hand-breadth and the cubit are not well defined. If we take a small hand-breadth of 9 cm, cubit 54 cm, then a cover of one hand-breadth height would have a volume of 98.415 (dm). Since the cover was of pure gold, of specific weight about 19, the total weight would have been 1870 kg. But the total weight of gold contributed for the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:24) was 29.25 talents or, on a basis of 12.5 g for the sheqel, about 1097 kg, not to speak of the fact that a weight of almost 1.9 tons would have crushed the wooden ark. All these data were well within the knowledge of antiquity. One has to conclude that they imagined the cover to be hollow.] ? Since there it is a minimal size, so here also a minimal size. What about it? Rav Aḥa bar Jacob said, face. There is no face less than a hand-breadth [This cryptic statement is explained in the Babli (in the name of Rav Aḥa bar Jacob’s teacher Rav Huna) as referring to Lev. 16:2 where Aaron is warned not to appear before the face of the cover except on the day of Atonement. This implies that the cover was not simply a sheet lying over the ark but had a face, a vertical dimension which is not negligible.] .

20Rebbi Yose asked, if there were a very high chest standing in a house, would it not be permitted to use anything from in it into the house or from the house into it [It is impossible to say that in general a new domain starts at 10 hand-breadths since it is commonly accepted that a private domain remains such to an indeterminate height. The Ark was standing in the private domain of the Sanctuary; a reference to it seems to be irrelevant.] ? But we are dealing when it was indicating to them the geographic directions [In the desert, the Ark was traveling in front of the people (Num. 10:33) while the Sanctuary was carried in the middle (v. 17). At the resting place, the Ark automatically assumed a West-East direction so that the Sanctuary could be placed around it and the tribes camped correctly in the four directions of the compass (Num. 2). The Ark had functions outside the Sanctuary; the reference is legitimate.] . This is understandable for him who said, a cubit of six [hand-breadths] [In Mishnaic times, the building cubit was a standard 6, the vessel cubit 5 hand-breadths. If the Ark was built to vessel standards, it cannot be used to define domains. Whether the vessel standard was used in the Temple is a matter of controversy in the Babli, Menaḥot 98a.] . But for him who said, a cubit of five hand-breadths? Would the Ark not be seven and one half hand-breadths? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the House of Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq. One learns it from the Ark, but the other learns it from the wagons [In Ex. 31:12–18 and 35:1–3 the observation of the Sabbath is emphasized in the instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. One concludes that the work forbidden on the Sabbath is exactly work needed in building or transporting the Tabernacle. The wagons mentioned here are the 6 wagons donated by the tribal chiefs for the transport of the Sanctuary (Num. 7:3).] . We do not know who learned it from the Ark and who learned in from the wagons. It is reasonable that the House of Rebbi Yannai learned it from the Ark since the House of Rebbi Yannai said, the cover was one hand-breadth [The reading of ס is preferable: Nine hand-breadths of the Ark and one of the cover.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq learns if from the Wagons. Rebbi Zeˋira asked, from where that the Wagons were ten [hand-breadths] high [There are no biblical indications about the height of the wagons’ platforms above ground.] ? Rebbi Yose said, and even if you said that they were ten high, did not Rebbi Neḥemiah state that the Freight Wagons were like a cupola [Greek καμάρα, Latin camara, -ae, f.(also camera) “arched or vaulted roof or ceiling, distinct from an outer roof”. The wagons are called עֶגְלֹ֥ת צָב֙. Now צָב means “turtle”; from this comes the usual translation “covered wagon”, using the image of the domed back of the turtle. The expression really is a technical term “freight-wagon”, Accadic ṣubbum, ṣūbum.] ? If there was a hole in the public domain ten deep and four wide, would it no be forbidden to use anything from in it into the public domain or from the public domain into it [This is a side remark. A hole in the public domain 10 hand-breadths deep and 4 by 4 wide creates a new domain and is considered a private domain from which nothing may be transported to the public domain. This cannot be derived by comparison either to the Ark or to the wagons.] ? But when they were transferring the planks from one to the other they were straight [Whether the wagons were covered with a convex covering or not is irrelevant since at the moment of loading the planks and the gobelins of the Sanctuary they were uncovered and certainly had flat loading areas. For the meaning of “straight” for תְּרוּטוֹת cf. Mishnah Middot 2:5.] .

21“Neither is liable. [Quote from Mishnaiot 3–4, starting the discussion of these.] ” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Ḥizqiah, the rabbis in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In the category of two people performing one work [Lev. 4:27. The verse is emphatic that purification sacrifices are available only for single perpetrators acting in error: If one person of the people of the land sin in error, if he act in one of the commandments of the Eternal which is a prohibition, and be damaged.] . Rav asked Rebbi, if another person put a bundle on his back, when he forgot and brought it out [Is this considered an incomplete action since another person lifted and put the load on him (Babli 3a).] ? On the occasion of the second repetition [The Babli (3b) reports that the question was asked when Rebbi was teaching (or editing) another tractate; it was Rebbi’s practice not to answer questions which did not concern the subject he was currently concerned with. He gave the answer only when he took up Mishnah Šabbat another time.] he told him, he is liable because it does not compare to this. Rebbi is of the opinion that when he started to walk it is as if he had taken up the object [If the other person had put the load on him while he was walking, there could be no liability since the action was not that of a single person. But if the load was resting on his back, when he then started walking he started moving the object and this makes the action complete.] . In the opinion of Rebbi, if he stood in the public domain and threw but ran and caught it [If this is a question different from the one asked earlier, it must mean that “absorbed it” has to mean that his body absorbed the shock of impact of the object, not that he caught it in his hands.] in a private domain, what? But is that not Rebbi since Rebbi made the airspace enclosed by walls like its essence [Therefore automatically the action is completed and there is liability.] ? It is only necessary in case he stood in the private domain and threw but ran and and caught it in a public domain, what? It was found stated: Rebbi declares him not liable until the moment it comes to rest [Public domain by definition is not enclosed by walls; an object is at rest only at the moment it stopped moving. If the object fell down because it hit his body, there was no putting down and no completed action.] .

22Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi, Ben Azzai, and Rebbi Aqiba, all three said the same. Rebbi made the airspace enclosed by walls like its essence [Therefore automatically the action is completed and there is liability.] . Ben Azzai made the airspace enclosed by karmelit like its essence [In this interpretation, which has no parallel in the Talmudim, anything in the airspace over a karmelit is considered lying there.] . Rebbi Aqiba made the airspace over public domain like its essence [For example in Mishnah 11:1 where he declares that a person throwing from one private domain to another over the public domain is liable, a statement opposed by the majority.] .

23[Tosephta 1:1, Babli 6a.] “There are four kinds of domain on the Sabbath: Private domain, public domain, karmelit, and dead-end streets [In the Babli: “Exempt space”. This is what one would expect. Dead-end streets can be either public domain or karmelit; their particular status is that by an eruv they can be transformed into private domains, whereas passages open at both ends in general cannot. These differences belong to Tractate Eruvin.] . What is private domain? A ditch ten deep and four wide, or a wall ten high and four wide; this is completely private domain. And what is completely public domain? A street [Latin strata (sc. via).] , a wide road [Greek πλατεῖα (sc., ὁδός) “a wide (road)”, equivalent of Hebrew רְחוֹב.] , desert, and passages open at both ends [It is “completely public” because it cannot be turned into a private domain by a symbolic eruv.] . One does not export from a private to a public domain nor import from a public to a private domain. If somebody exported or imported in error he is liable for a purification sacrifice; intentionally he is liable for extirpation or is stoned [Desecration of the Sabbath is punishable by Heaven’s extirpation if there are no witnesses or nor proper warning was given, and by the courts if there are witnesses both for due warning and the act itself.] , whether he exports or imports, or lifts or throws. An ocean, or a valley [Karmelit is a part of the public domain not readily accessible to the public (Chapter 13 Note 68). The two main examples are “the sides of a thoroughfare”, the part of a street close to the houses if that part is not easy to use because of stairs extending from the houses or if the fronts of the houses do not form a straight line. The other is “valley”, a rural access path which is public domain, not a thoroughfare but meant only as a path for farmers working adjacent fields. Since karmelit is not a thoroughfare (defined as road of at least 16 cubits width) it does not qualify as public domain for which transport from a private domain is forbidden. The statement of R. Joḥanan implies that he cannot consider walking as equivalent of standing still (Note 56) since transporting from a private domain to karmelit followed by transport from karmelit to public domain, while forbidden on the Sabbath, does not generate liability (Note 81). (The etymology of the word karmelit is unknown. Cf. Accadic karmiš “like a ruin”.)] , or a platform [Latin stibadium, -ii, n., Greek στιβάδιον; a semi-circular couch.] , or a threshold, or karmelit [Or any other kind of karmelit.] are neither public nor private domain; one does not carry there [A rabbinic prohibition of carrying further than four cubits because the karmelit looks like public domain.] but if one carried he is not liable.”

24Rav Joseph said, in fact we have stated [While the technical term karmelit does not appear in the Mishnah, all the examples enumerated in the Tosephta are found in the Mishnah and the rules can be deduced from Mishnaic quotes.] all of these. The sea as we have stated there [Mishnah 11:5.] : “One who in the sea throws four cubits is not liable.” Not only in the sea four cubits, but even if he throws the entire length of the sea he is not liable, for the entire sea is called karmelit [Since nobody can walk in the sea, it cannot be considered public domain.] . A valley [Karmelit is a part of the public domain not readily accessible to the public (Chapter 13 Note 68). The two main examples are “the sides of a thoroughfare”, the part of a street close to the houses if that part is not easy to use because of stairs extending from the houses or if the fronts of the houses do not form a straight line. The other is “valley”, a rural access path which is public domain, not a thoroughfare but meant only as a path for farmers working adjacent fields. Since karmelit is not a thoroughfare (defined as road of at least 16 cubits width) it does not qualify as public domain for which transport from a private domain is forbidden. The statement of R. Joḥanan implies that he cannot consider walking as equivalent of standing still (Note 56) since transporting from a private domain to karmelit followed by transport from karmelit to public domain, while forbidden on the Sabbath, does not generate liability (Note 81). (The etymology of the word karmelit is unknown. Cf. Accadic karmiš “like a ruin”.)] as we have stated [Mishnah Ṭaharot 6:4. The “valley” is agricultural domain accessible only by rural paths, not by a paved road. In the dry season, after the grain was cut and before the fields are ploughed for new seeds, the fields are accessible to everybody. Since there is nothing hidden there, it is like public domain for impurity but since it is not easy of access it cannot be considered public domain for the rules of the Sabbath.] : “A valley during the dry season is private domain for the Sabbath but public domain for impurity [Where any question of ritual impurity is resolved by presumption of purity, Soṭah1:2 Note 88.] . During the rainy season it is (private) [public] [The word in parentheses is from the text of the scribe here, the reading in the Mishnah, the quote in the Babli (Šabbat 6b, Bava batra 123b), and alluded to in Bava batra 9:8 (Note 87). The text in brackets is that of the first corrector. It was noted by Qorban Haˋedah (as emendation of the Venice text since the ms. was not accessible to this author) and supported by convincing arguments by S. Liebermann (תלמודא דקיסרין p. 17 Note 2, הירושלמי כפשוטו p. 15) and J. N. Epstein (Tarbiz 5, 1934, p. 264) that the text of the scribe is correct and the correction a corruption. In the rainy season the fields are sown, the grain is growing, and any trespass by unauthorized persons is criminal. There is no doubt that the fields have the status of private domain both for the Sabbath and for cases of doubt about impurity.] domain for both.” If you say private domain for both it should not need surrounding by animals’ gear, but we have stated [Mishnah Eruvin 1:8. A caravan which in the dry season uses a “valley” as camping ground for a stay over the Sabbath is required to turn the fields into a guarded place by arranging the (camel or donkey) loads as a symbolic wall (of 10 hand-breadths height). In the interior then one may carry unrestrictedly. This proves that in the dry season the fields are not private domains in the commonly accepted sense; they are karmelit.] : “If they surrounded it by animals’ gear one carries in the interior.” A platform, as we have stated [Mishnah Eruvin 9:5.] : “And similarly one carries under open bridges on the Sabbath, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; but the rabbis forbid. [It is supposed that the bridges are not simply a roadway on a flat support but that they have side walls extending somewhat under the roadway so that seen from below they delineate the space under the bridge. The Sages forbid to carry for four cubits or more in the informally defined space but they refrain from imposing liability; this proves that the prohibition is purely rabbinical; the space can be neither private nor public domain.] ” A threshold [This is a repetition of an earlier text as referred to by the Notes.] , as we have stated: [Mishnah 10:2. “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold, whether he or somebody else carries them to the street there is no liability since it was not done in one action.”] “If one carries out foodstuffs and puts them on the threshold; whether he or another person then carries it out, he is not liable since the work was not performed in one step.” Therefore if the work was completed in one step [As noted before, the work of transporting consists of lifting, moving, and depositing. If this is done from private to public domain, it is a desecration of the Sabbath. But a combination of two actions, both involving karmelit and therefore not creating liability, still does not create liability.] he would be liable. Ben Azzai said, even if he completed the work at one time he would not be liable. Karmelit. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: karmel “soft full”, neither moist nor dry but average [The same etymology of the quadrilitteral כרמל is given in Sifra Wayyiqra I Parsheta 13(8), Pereq 15(1).] . And here it is neither public nor private domain but karmelit. What is karmelit? Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for example the store of Bar Justinus [In the Babli (7a) the example is given of a stoa, a roofed domain bounded by pillars. Since such a stoa is a pedestrian mall, not accessible to vehicular traffic; if there is an additional obstacle to free circulation it becomes karmelit. S. Liebermann conjectured that the store in question was situated in such a stoa.] . A multi-party courtyard and dead-end streets: if there is an eruv they are permitted, but if no eruv was made they are forbidden [A domain which is not public by biblical standards can be turned into a private domain by an eruv, “mixing” (of domains), by arranging the potential of a common meal for all interested persons. A genuinely public domain cannot be turned into a private domain. Therefore the domains mentioned as candidates for eruv cannot be public domains. They also cannot be private domains since then they would need no eruv.] .

25Rebbi Zeˋirah in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina [It seems that the correct reading is quoted by Rashba (ad 7a): “Zaˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina.”] : landings [Even though the reading סמטיות (“paths”, Latin semita, -ae f.) is confirmed by Rashba, the translation follows an emendation of Yefe Enaim, J. N. Epstein (Tarbiz 1(2) p. 135), and S. Liebermann, to read מסטויות (with consonantal first vaw), the Galilean form of Babylonian אצטבא used in the parallel 7a (as in Pesaḥim 5:8).] between pillars are judged as karmelit [Since these are obstacles to free circulation; Note 160.] . Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah [In the Yerushalmi this student of R. Ḥanina’s always is quoted with names of father and grandfather; in the Babli (Bava meṣiˋa 72b) he is quoted as R. Samuel bar Ḥiyya.] in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: The flowers [The spaces under the capital of a Corinthian pillar which are too close to the pillar to be part of a thoroughfare.] of the pillars are considered karmelit. There it is necessary that they be higher than three [hand-breadths] [The sentence can use some rearrangement: Anything which hinders access in the public domain because it (or its enclosure) is at least three hand-breadths high is considered karmelit.] ; Ḥiyya the son of Rav: Anything which hinders access in the public domain is considered karmelit. The rabbis of Caesarea say, even thistles, even glass. This is necessary if they are not three [hand-breadths] high [While for Ḥiyya bar Rav the three hand-breadths rule is always needed (Babli 7a), for the rabbis of Caesarea it is suspended if the place cannot be stepped on.] .

26And Rebbi Yose [The parallel in Eruvin 1(1), Note 162, shows that the name is Yasa, R. Joḥanan’s student, and not the fifth generation R. Yose.] said: The threshold about which they spoke is four wide but not ten high. If you would say, ten high and four wide, it is a domain by itself [As explained later in this paragraph, the top of the stick must be at least four-by-four hand-breadths wide. Since the public domain extends only to a height of ten hand-breadths, the airspace is available for the creation of other domains. A surface of less than four-by-four hand-breadths is not usable; but if it has the minimal size it creates a new private domain and all the prohibitions of transport to and from a public domain do apply. If the surface area is less than the required minimum it is exempt space and all transports to and from it do not create liability; cf. Note 170. Babli 5a, 101a, Eruvin 33b.] . If you would say, ten high but not four wide, that is what Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Assi: If a stick stuck in the public domain ten hand-breadths high, it is permitted both ways on condition that he not exchange [This is the necessary complement to the earlier statement by Rav Ḥisda , Note 114. The prohibition to use exempt space as an intermediate station in transport from private to public domain is in the Babli 8b; Tosephta 1:6.] . But we must deal with the case that it is neither four wide nor ten high [This text contradicts the prior statement that we are dealing with a domain four-by-four wide but not ten high. In addition, a place in the public domain not four-by-four wide and not ten high is public domain and not karmelit. One has to read: “four wide but not ten high” as noted by Qorban Haˋedah.] .

27A threshold in front of the door; others [Babli 6a,9a. Even though in the Mishnah “others” means R. Nathan, here it cannot mean this since R. Nathan dissents.] say whenever the door is open it is entirely inside [If the threshold is not 10 hand-breadths higher than the public domain. As Rashba explains (ad 9a), since the outside platform is flush with the interior of the house there is no need to rabbinically forbid carrying from the house to the platform. Tosephta 1:6.] , when it is locked it is entirely outside. What are we dealing with? If it is roofed [The entrance to the house is covered by a roof fastened to the house and two outside pillars. There is no reason not to consider this part of the house.] even when it is locked it is entirely inside, if it is not roofed even when it is open it is entirely outside. But we must deal with the case that it is partially roofed [There are two possible interpretations. One is that one refers to the entrance to a house where the platform in front of the door extends beyond the roof. The other is that one speaks of the entrance to a dead-end street which was made into a private domain by a log lying horizontally over the entrance which is higher than the public road into which it opens. In that case the log, in order to count as a roof, must be four hand-breadths wide.] and partially not roofed. What does it mean, when it is locked it is entirely outside? It is permitted for use from it to the outside and from the outside to it. If there was a hole in the door it is forbidden for use from it to the hole and from the hole to it. Rebbi Nathan says, when it is locked it is entirely outside; when it is open it is partially inside and partially outside. And that is what we wanted to say; a threshold of four when the door is locked is entirely outside, also when the door is open it is partially inside and partially outside [Because only the space under the roof is counted as part of the house.] .

28MISHNAH: A person should not sit before the barber close to the time of afternoon prayers unless he has prayed [This Mishnah is not connected with the laws of the Sabbath in contrast to the following ones for which it is an introduction. The general rule is that once there is an obligation to pray, the obligation should be fulfilled before any profane action is taken, in particular if the intended action may be a lengthy one. The problem with afternoon prayers is that it is possible to pray starting half an hour after noon (“the great minḥah”) but the actual obligation starts only an hour and a quarter before sundown (“the small minḥah”). The “hours” mentioned here are variable, one-twelfth of the time between sunrise and sundown. From the Halakhah in the Yerushalmi it is clear that only the small minḥah is taken into account; in the Babli (9b) both times are considered.] . Nor should one enter the bathhouse or the tannery, nor start eating, nor sit in judgment; if they started they should not interrupt. One interrupts for the recitation of the Shemaˋ but not for prayer [While there exists a general biblical obligation to pray (Sifry Deut. 41 based on Deut. 10:12) neither time nor texts are fixed by biblical law. Therefore there is no biblical obligation to pray at any fixed time; all rules are rabbinic even if based on Dan.6:11, a book without standing in halakhah. On the other hand, the recitation of the Shemaˋ evenings and mornings is a biblical requirement (Deut. 6:7,11:19). An ongoing activity one interrupts for biblical but not for rabbinic obligations.] .

29HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A person should not sit before the barber,” [Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 5.] etc. We have stated “close to the afternoon prayers.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, close to darkness. Our Mishnah needs Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita and Rebbi Ḥiyya’s baraita needs our Mishnah. If Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we, we would have said that he means exactly darkness but not the afternoon prayers. Therefore our Mishnah is necessary. But if Rebbi Ḥiyya had stated rather than we [Clearly this must read: “If we had stated but R. Ḥiyya did not.” This is Rav Nissim of Kairuan’s reading [י.נ. אפשטין, שני קטעים מספרי רב נסים בר יעקב, קובץ על יד ג (1939).]] , we would have said that everywhere “afternoon prayers” is stated it means afternoon prayers, and everywhere “darkness” is stated it means darkness. Since we stated “afternoon prayers” and Rebbi Ḥiyya stated “darkness”, this implies that “darkness” stated later refers to the time of afternoon prayers [The times indicated in Mishnah 6 are no different from those in Mishnah 5 even though the terminology is different. In itself, the expression “the time of the afternoon prayers” is ambiguous. It may denote “the great Minḥah”, the time when afternoon prayers first become possible, half an hour after Noontime, or “the small Minḥah” when prayers become mandatory, one and a quarter hours before sundown. It is clear that the Yerushalmi identifies “Minḥah” as “the small Minḥah”. The Babli 9b seems to disagree.] . Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rav Hoshaia’s brother [A student of R. Zeˋira.] said, our Mishnah refers to the vulgar, what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated to fellows [Cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. The vulgar are persons following rabbinic rules in general; the fellows follow all detailed rules, in particular those of purity and tithing. As S. Liebermann has noted, the anonymous Yerushalmi as a matter of principle considers the Mishnah and R. Ḥiyya’s Tosephta (which is not the Tosephta in our hands) as complementary whereas named authors tend to consider them as competing systems.] . The rabbis of Caesarea say our Mishnah is following Rebbi Jehudah [In Mishnah Berakhot 4:1, R. Jehudah states that afternoon prayers are only permitted until “the small Minḥah” while the rabbis permit it until nightfall.] , what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated follows the rabbis.

30“Before the barber close to the time of afternoon prayers unless he had prayed. Nor should one enter a bathhouse. [Quote from Mishnah 5.] ” What is the start of hair-dressing? When he starts cutting the hair. But did we not state, if he sat down to have his hair cut and they came and told him that his father had died, he finishes [grooming] his head, whether it was the person grooming or the one being groomed. It is done only when he is wrapped in the shoulder cloth [Latin linteum, i, n. “towel”. Babli 9b.] .

31[This and the following paragraph are copied somewhat defectively in Qiddušin1:7 (Notes 594–605).] What is the start of bathing? Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina said, when he opened his belt [Babli 9b.] . Rav said, when he took off his shoe. As the following. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi was used to hear the lesson of his grandson every Friday. Once he forgot and went bathing in the public baths of Tiberias; he was leaning on Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s shoulder. He remembered that he had not heard his grandson’s lesson, turned around and left. When was this? Rebbi Derosai said, he was anointing himself. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose says, he had taken off his clothes. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him, did our teacher not teach us “if they started they should not interrupt”? He said to him, Ḥiyya my son, is that unimportant in your eyes? For anyone who hears the lesson from his grandson is as if he heard it from Sinai. What is the reason? You shall make it known to your sons and grandsons, the day when you stood before the Eternal, your God, at Horeb [Deut. 4:10. A slightly different interpretation un the name of R. Joshua ben Levi in the Babli, Qiddušin 30a.] .

32Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If you can link the tradition back to Moses, link it. Otherwise, take either the very first or the very last [source] [In a lengthy chain of tradition, the list of intermediaries can be abbreviated.] . Giddul said, anybody who quotes somebody should consider it as if the author of the quote stood before him. What is the reason? Only in image a man wanders [Ps. 39:7.] . It is written, many a man professes good will, but where will you find one you can trust [Prov. 20:6.] ? That is Rebbi Zeˋira [Who is the only one strictly following Giddul in questioning any tradition where the tradent could not possibly have known personally the person whom he is quoting, a requirement in a purely oral tradition. R. Joḥanan permits only to abbreviate the list of intermediaries, not the last one from whom the speaker heard it.] , as Rebbi Zeˋira said, we do not take the traditions of Rav Sheshet into account since he is blind. Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Yasa, does the Rabbi know Bar Pedaiah that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rebbi Joḥanan quoted them in his name. [Chapter 14, end (15a line 1).] Rebbi Zeˋira said to Rebbi Abba bar Zavda, does the Rabbi know Rav that you quote traditions in his name? He said to him, Rav Ada bar Ahavah quoted them in his name.

33“Nor the tannery. [Quote from Mishnah 5.] ” Come and look, does one not avoid people who stink? And you say so? It comes only when he puts on his work clothes [A reasonable explanation of this paragraph has been given by S. Liebermann. R. Yose (the Amora) states later in the discussion of Mishnah 5 that one interrupts what one is doing for the recitation of the Šemaˋ but not for prayer since the recitation does not need concentration and therefore needs only a short moment whereas prayer requires concentration and a longer interruption. The question raised here is that it is forbidden to recite the Šemaˋ (or quote any verse) at smelly places (cf. Berakhot 3:5). Since tanning of hides produces bad smell, the tanner cannot recite anything unless he remove himself from his place of work and cleanse himself thoroughly, which consumes more time than people usually spend for prayer. Therefore reciting the Šemaˋ for a tanner should follow the rules of prayer and he should not be required to interrupt his work. The answer is that he is required to interrupt only if he already has put on his work clothes but not entered the tannery. The fact is noted in the Babli (9b), the question is not asked.] .

34“Nor start eating. [Quote from Mishnah 5.] ” What is the start of eating? Rebbi Aha, Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi [For “Rebbi” read “Rav”; according to Liebermann this is the reading of M. Halawa.] : When he washed his hands. Rebbi Aha said, this was said for Qidduš [It seems that this refers to a discussion reported only in the Babli (Pesachim 10a) that Rav allows Qidduš, the declaration of the Sanctification of the Sabbath, to be recited either on wine or on bread. The decision what to do has to be made before the washing of the hands.] . Rebbi Abba said, this was said for the benediction [As soon as one has washed his hands he has to start the meal by reciting the benediction over bread (on a weekday).] . Rav had washed his hands when his son Hiyya gave a sign to the waiter, who wanted to serve him. He told him, we already started the meal [In Mishnah Berakhot 8:2 it is stated that the House of Shammai permit mixing the cup for Qidduš after one has washed his hands but the House of Hillel require that the cup be mixed before one washes. Since Rav had washed his hands, he would have been able to recite Qidduš over wine only if the wine had been mixed and poured before the washing of the hands when the benedictions over wine and Qidduš are not counted as interruption between washing and starting the meal (as in the German minhag).] .

35[This paragraph is a copy of one in Berakhot 2:9 (Notes 354–360), ב.] Clarification [Greek δήλωμα, ατος, τό.] . Rebbi Miasha and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac were sitting and eating in one of the upper synagogues. There came the time of prayer and Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac got up to pray. Rebbi Misha said to him, Teacher, did you not teach us that once one started one does not interrupt? And Ḥizqiah stated, every one who is not under an obligation and does it anyway is called uneducated [Greek ἰδιώτης, -ου, ὁ.] ? He said to him, did we not state, “the bridegroom is not liable [Mishnah Berakhot 2:6.] ,” “the bridegroom if he wants to recite recites [Mishnah Berakhot 2:9.] .” He answered him, I can explain this following Rabban Gamliel who said, “I shall not listen to you to lift from me the Kingdom of Heaven for one moment [Mishnah Berakhot 2:6.] .”

36“Nor sit in judgment. [Quote from Mishnah 5.] ” Rav Jeremiah and Rav Joseph. One said, when they sat down to judge; the other said, when they start presenting their arguments [Babli 10a in somewhat greater detail. S. Liebermann points out that in the Babli the authors are R. Jeremiah and R. Jonah. (The reading “Rav Jeremiah” is a distortion of the Wilna edition.) Since R. Jonah was the companion of R. Yose the Amora it seems that in both Talmudim one has to read R. Jeremiah (the teacher of RR. Yose and Jonah) and not Rav Jeremiah (bar Abba) of the very first generation of Amoraim, and in the Yerushalmi R. Yose.] .

37[There exists a parallel text in Berakhot 1:5 (Notes 163–175) available both in the Leiden ms. (ב) and a Genizah text edited by L. Ginzberg (בּ) שרידי הירושלמי pp. 4–5. Where these two sources concur, their text seems preferable.] “One interrupts for the recitation of the Shemaˋ but not for prayer [Quote from Mishnah 5.] .” Rebbi Aḥa said, the recitation of Shemaˋ is a Biblical obligation; prayer is not a Biblical obligation. Rebbi Abba said, the time for the recitation of the Shemaˋ is fixed, the time for prayer is not fixed. Rebbi Yose said, the recitation of Shemaˋ does not need concentration, prayer needs concentration. Rebbi Mana said: I objected before Rebbi Yose: Even if you say that the recitation of the Shemaˋ does not need concentration, the first three verses need concentration. Since there are so few, one will concentrate.

38Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai: “For example we, who are engaged in the study of Torah, do not interrupt even for the recitation of the Shemaˋ.” Rebbi Joḥanan used to say about himself: “For example we, who are not engaged in the study of Torah, do interrupt even for prayer. [An interesting variant is in בּ: “Even though we are engaged in the study of Torah, we do interrupt even for prayer.” The version of the text here is adopted by the Babli, 11a.] ”This one follows his own opinion and that one follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion since Rebbi Joḥanan said, if only a man prayed the entire day. Why? Because prayer is never in vain.Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, if I had stood at Mount Sinai at the moment that the Torah was given to Israel, I would have implored the All-Merciful that He should create two mouths for a man; one for him to exert himself in Torah, and the other one for his needs. But he changed and said, with one mouth already the world almost cannot exist because of the denunciations [Latin delator, -oris, m. “informant”.] ; if there were two how much more would there be?Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Jeremiah: The position of Rebbi Joḥanan is identical with that of Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba, as we have stated: “The scribes of Torah scrolls, Tefillin, and Mezuzot, do interrupt for the recitation of Shemaˋ but do not interrupt for prayer. Rebbi Ḥananiah ben Aqiba [With the parallel sources read “Aqabiah”.] said, just as they interrupt for Shemaˋ, so they interrupt for prayer, Tefillin, and all other commandments of the Torah.”Would not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai agree that one interrupts to make a Sukkah or a lulav? Does not Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai make the distinction between one who studies to do and one who studies in order not to do? Because he who studies in order not to do would have been better off had he not been born [Babli Berakhot 17a; Lev. r. 35(6), Sifra Beḥuqqotai Introduction (5).] . And did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, he who studies in order not to do would have been better off if the placenta he was in was twisted around and he never would have entered the world? The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai is that this one is repeated study and that one is repeated study and one does not push aside one study for the other study. But did we not state [Mishnah Berakhot 1:5.] : “He who reads after that did not lose, he is like a man reading in the Torah”? Hence, at the right time it is preferred to Torah. Rebbi Yudan said that Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai, since he was enjoying studying Torah, did not prefer Shemaˋ to the study of Torah. Rebbi Abba Mari said, did we not state: “He is only like a man studying Torah.” Hence, at the right time it is like Mishnah. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai follows his own opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai said, he who studies the written Torah does himself good that is not so good. But the rabbis equate the study of the Bible with that of the oral law [Babli Bava meṣiˋa 33a.] .

39MISHNAH: A tailor should not leave with his needle close to sundown lest he forget and leave [Obviously one is permitted to wear clothing on the Sabbath, and in general also jewelry. A person who is not a tailor may wear a jewelry pin on the Sabbath. But a tailor may not wear a pin stuck somewhere on his jacket since this is a tool of his trade rather than ornamentation. Therefore he has to remove all needles and pins stuck in his garment on Friday afternoon.] ; nor the scribe with his pen. He should not check his garments for lice nor read by candlelight [While the use of lights is required on Friday night (as opposed to later Karaite teaching) it is forbidden to move the lights or refill a lamp with fuel on the Sabbath. Therefore one has to refrain from any activity which might induce one to move a light to improve visibility, such as reading.] . In truth [Any rule introduced by “in truth” is unquestioned ancient practice.] they said that the teacher may look where the children are reading [Since school children are interested in having the light go out so they do not have to study any more, one does not have to be afraid that they will move the light for better reading.] but he may not read himself. Similarly, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux because of inducement to sin [This has nothing to do with the rules of the Sabbath; it is listed here as another example of a rabbinic prohibition instituted to avoid the possible breaking of a biblical law. The male zav is the sufferer from gonorrhea (Lev. 15:1–15); his impurity is severe, infectious, and needs an elaborate ceremonial for cleansing the healed patient. The female zavah suffers from excessive menstruation or other bloody discharges; her impurity similarly is severe, infectious, and needs a (less elaborate) ceremonial for cleansing the healed patient (Lev. 15:25–30). Since sexual relations with a menstruating woman are forbidden (Lev. 15:24, 18:19), by extension relations with the zava also are forbidden. Therefore, situations that might lead to intimacy with a zavah have to be avoided.] .

40HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “A tailor should not leave with his needle close to sundown lest he forget and leave,” [Quote from Mishnah 6. The entire paragraph is repeated in Chapter 6, on Mishnah 3.] etc. It was stated [Tosephta 1:8; Babli 11b.] : “A tailor should not leave with a needle in his garment [Friday afternoon he should not leave his work place and go into the public domain lest he carry his tool with him once the Sabbath starts.] , nor a scribe [Latin libellarius, -ii, m.] with the pen behind his ear, nor a dyer with a sample behind his ear [He carries a sample (Greek δεῖγμα) of his work with him to show potential customers.] , nor a money-changer with a denar behind his ear. If one of these left they are not liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr [Since they did not take up the tools of their trade with the intent of carrying them on the Sabbath, there is no complete work even if they fail to remove them and while they sinned they are not liable criminally or for a sacrifice.] . Rebbi Jehudah says, a craftsman in the ways of his craft is liable [He holds that a professional takes up his tools for any use he may find for them; therefore for him the work always is complete.] , therefore everybody else [A non-professional may leave his house on Friday afternoon with a tool that is not of his trade for even if he did forget to lay it down before sunset he would not be liable.] may leave with one of these.”The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted, as we have stated there [Mishnah 6:3: A woman may not leave (on the Sabbath, from a private domain into the public one) with a needle that has an ear; if she left …” A needle with an ear is used for sewing. Since every woman sews, she is a professional and R. Meïr should declare her not liable following his opinion in the Tosephta.] : “If she left she is liable, the words of Rebbi Meïr,” and here he says so? Rebbi Mana said it without attribution, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There women usually do it, but here only children leave with this [Since all women are sewing, the rule of the professional does not apply. But professionals do not carry the tools of their trade on the Sabbath, only their small children play adults with these tools or toy imitations on the Sabbath.] . The argument of the rabbis seems inverted, as we have stated there [Mishnah 6:3: A woman may not leave (on the Sabbath, from a private domain into the public one) with a needle that has an ear; if she left …” A needle with an ear is used for sewing. Since every woman sews, she is a professional and R. Meïr should declare her not liable following his opinion in the Tosephta.] : “But the Sages declare not liable with a plate of make-up or a flask of perfume [Latin foliatum, -ii, n., scil. unguentum, unguent or oil made of the leaves of spicenard..] .” Therefore with a needle with ear she is liable [As S. Liebermann points out, the text in Chapter 3 reads “with a needle without ear she is liable.” This must refer to a pin which is not a decoration.] . Is that a craftsman who is liable in the way of his craft [Since we follow the rule that in a dispute between R. Meïr and R. Jehudah practice follows R. Jehudah, the Sages here are identical with R. Jehudah in the Tosephta. Since a pin is not a universal tool of women, why should she be liable for carrying a pin under the craftsmen’s rule?] ? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it for a woman hairdresser [The verb גַּדֵּל means “to braid”. The hairdresser uses a pin to separate strands of unwashed hair of her clients which cling together. This is a tool of trade.] .

41Mishnah [Quote from Mishnah 6. The entire paragraph is repeated in Chapter 6, on Mishnah 3.] “He should not check his garments for lice nor read by candlelight,” etc. Even on weekdays it is forbidden since it is not decent [It seems that one should read with the Tosephta (16:22 ed. Liebermann) “On weekdays it is forbidden in public”. Opposed in the Babli 12a by Rav Huna.] . It was stated [Babli 12a, Tosephta (16:22 ed. Liebermann). In these sources the statements of the anonymous Tanna and Abba Shaul are switched.] : One who checks his garments takes and throws away; only he should not rub [If he caught a louse, he should throw it away and not kill it by rubbing it between thumb and a finger.] . Abba Shaul says, he may rub and throw away, only he should not kill. Ḥizqiah said, one who kills a louse is like one who kills a camel [Babli 12a, in the name of the Tanna R. Eliezer. Since mammals were slaughtered in the Tabernacle, killing a mammal on the Sabbath certainly is a capital crime. Babli 107b.] . Samuel broke off its hands and feet and gave if to the children [Since underage children do not have religious obligations, they may kill lice with impunity. The Babli, 12a, reports the same from R. Naḥman.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun put it in a flask [To kill the lice after the end of Sabbath.] . Rebbi Simeon ben Ḥalafta said, did we not understand this from the purple snail? Does the purple snail have sinews and bones? But was it not stated: Any which has neither sinews nor bones does not live more than six months [While murder is always forbidden, killing a person who according to medical science does not have 12 months to live is not prosecutable. On the other hand, purple dye was used in creating the priestly vestments and the gobelins of the Tabernacle; therefore killing a purple snail for the production of dye is a capital crime. If a louse does not live a full year, killing it is a capital crime according to the second argument and does not create liability by the first. The two rules appear to be inconsistent. Cf. Babli Ḥulin 58a.] ? For Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said in the name of Rav [Red: Rebbi.] Zevid, the Holy One, praise to Him, turns around His world once in seven years [While a louse qua louse cannot live a full year, it may morph into something which can; therefore killing it is forbidden on the Sabbath.] . [These sentences are difficult to understand. There exists a parallel in the Babli Bava qamma 16a where R. Ḥananel quotes the Yerushalmi in extenso: ר׳ יוסי ב״ר בון בשם ר׳ זביד אחת לשבה הקב״ה מחליף עולמו ממוחו דרישא מתעבד עקרב ודמעיא סממה תולעתא דסוסיא מתעבדא עוראי. ודתורתא מתעבדא דברי עכברא דתורא מתעבד חזיר בר. שיזרתא דנונא מתעבדא נדל. דתניא צבוע זכר לאחר ז׳ שנִים נעשה ערפד ערפד לאחר ז׳ שנִים נעשה קימוש. קימוש לאחר ז׳ שנִים נעשה חיה ויש אומרים חוה חוה לאחר ז׳ שנִים נעשה שד שדרתו של אדם לאחר ז׳ שנִים נעשה נחש והני מילי בההוא דלא כרע במודים. Rebbi Yose ben R. Abun in the name of R. Zevid: the Holy One, praise to Him, turns around His world once in seven years. The marrow in the head becomes a scorpion and that of innards a lizard. A horse worm turns into a wasp, that of cattle into a bee. The spine of a fish turns into a centipede. As is stated, a male hyena after seven years turns into a bat, a bat after seven years turns into a hedgehog, a hedgehog after seven years turns into a wild animal; some say a snake. A snake after seven years turns into a demon. A human’s spine after seven years turns into a snake; this refers to one who does not bow down at “we thank”. Since all words in this version are identifiable, it has to be considered as lectio facilior. In the original version, קמקמה is unidentified (unlikely قمقام “moth”). Kohut proposes Farsi خمخم “crab”. Liebermann reads קמוסא “hedgehog”. The three words חו רב פדה should be read as one, חרפדה which is the same as ערפד “bat”. חר אפר again is a corruption of the same word. דמנייא seems to be a corruption of the word דמעיא quoted by R. Ḥananel. Also שר seems a misreading for שד “demon”. The last sentence refers to the penultimate benediction in the Amidah, the main prayer, where one is required to bow down while reciting “we are thanking You”. This last statement is quoted in many Medieval liturgical tractates, starting with R. Amram Gaon’s Siddur.] Qamqama turns into Ḥu-Rav-Padah. Ḥar-Efer turns into Šer. The head louse turns into a scorpion and the one of garments into a lizard. A horse worm turns into a wasp, that of cattle into a bee. A male hyena turns into a female, a field rat turns into a wild boar. The spine of a fish turns into a centipede, of a human into a snake. When? If he does not bow down with his entire spine [Babli 12b. While the Mishnah forbids investigating one’s garments for lice Friday nights, he permits investigating food.] .

42Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry [Babli 12b. While the Mishnah forbids investigating one’s garments for lice Friday nights, he permits investigating food.] . Some want to say, because it is for a short time [A cursory inspection will not lead one to move a candle.] ; but some want to say because of cleanliness or danger [To inspect food for worms or other contamination is a biblical obligation which has precedence over rabbinic prohibitions.] . What is the difference between them? To separate lettuce leaves [To prepare lettuce, the leaves have to be washed and/or inspected for worms and snails. This takes time.] . For him who says, because it is for a short time, it is forbidden. For him who says, because of cleanliness or danger, it is permitted. Rav Jeremiah [The Babylonian Rav Jeremiah bar Abba, student and colleague of Rav who was nephew and student of R. Ḥiyya. Babli 12b.] visited Rav Assi, who mixed a cup for him. He started inspecting it. His house companion [Rav Assi’s wife.] said to him, look what he is doing! He told her, because he follows his teacher’s [Rav. In the Babli, it was Rav Jeremiah’s servant who inspected the cup; in that version רַבֵּיהּ has to be translated “his master” with no reason indicated why Rav Jeremiah should follow R. Ḥiyya.] argument, as Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: But one may investigate what is in the cup or the pot without worry.

43“Nor read by candlelight” [Quote from Mishnah 6. The entire paragraph is repeated in Chapter 6, on Mishnah 3.] . Samuel said, they stated that only for a single person [A single person may not do anything which might lead him to move a burning light (Note 5), two people who can warn one another if one be tempted to touch the light may read together.] . Therefore for two, who can hinder one another, it is permitted. Samuel’s baraita [Tosephta 1:11. This characterizes the Tosephta as Babylonian.] disagrees with him: “Both a light which he can turn as one which he cannot turn.” Ulla bar Ismael in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Even many. In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar even if it [If the burning light is out of reach of the person who is reading.] is very high, even if it is in (one) [With the Tosephta read אַחֵר “another”.] house, even if it is on a look-out [Latin specula, -ae, f.] .

44It was stated, lest he forget and turn [Babli 12b. This is the reason why reading by candlelight is forbidden.] . [Tosephta 1:13, Babli 12b.] “Rebbi Ismael said, I will read but not turn. He forgot and almost turned. He said, how great are the words of the Sages who said, lest he forget and turn. Rebbi Nathan says, he actually turned and wrote on his writing tablet [Greek πίναξ, -ακος, ὁ.] , Ismael ben Elisha turned the light on the Sabbath. When the Temple will be rebuilt he is liable for a purification sacrifice.”

45There, we have stated [Mishnah Avot 2:4.] : “Do not believe in yourself up to the day of your death.” It happened that a pious man sat and stated, do not believe in yourself up to your old age, as I Am. There came a spirit to tempt him, and he started to err after her [He asked her for sex.] . She told him, do not feel bad, I am a spirit. Go and be equal to your colleagues [Formulate the Mishnah to read “up to the day of your death.”] .

46Mishnah: “In truth they said that the teacher may look where the children are reading.” Rebbi Eleazar said that every place where they stated “in truth” it is practice going back to Moses on Mount Sinai [Chapter 10 (Note 48), Kilaim 2:2 Note 36, Terumot 2:1 Note 16, Nazir 7:3 Note 179 (in Chapter 10 and Nazir in the name of R. Eliezer); Babli 92b, Bava meṣiˋa 60a. Since the prohibition to read by candlelight is purely rabbinic, the expression “going back to Moses on Mount Sinai” is an exaggeration. Probably it simply should say “it is practice”, i. e., without dissent; this is the formulation of the Babli, 92b.] . What does he have to put in order? The beginnings of paragraphs [or] verses [Since one does not teach children new subjects on the Sabbath but one helps them to commit to memory what they did learn during the week, all they have to see are the beginnings of verses to remember the full text.] . It was stated [Tosephta 1:12.] : “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, children prepare the beginnings of verses by candlelight.” What about it? These want the light to go out [Since school children are interested in having the light go out so they do not have to study any more, one does not have to be afraid that they will move the light for better reading.] , those [The adults who are forbidden to read by candlelight.] do not want the light to go out.

47Mishnah [Quote from Mishnah 6. The entire paragraph is repeated in Chapter 6, on Mishnah 3.] : “Similarly, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux.” It was stated [Babli 13a, Tosephta 1:14.] : Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, look how far purity did spread, as it is said [Gen. 30:30.] , for the little which you had expanded mightily; [1Chr. 4:38. The implication is that in both cases the increase was the reward of exact observation of the rules of purity.] and their families expanded mightily. They did not decide to say, the pure may not eat with the impure [From the parallels it is clear that one should not read “the pure may not eat with the impure (m.)” but “the pure may not eat with the impure (f.)”, i. e., a husband may not eat with his wife during her menstrual impurity. They did not have to spell this out because people by themselves followed this rule.] , but they said, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux [As an example of the general rule that a male may not eat with a woman with whom he could not sleep.] ; therefore the male sufferer from gonorrhea with a female sufferer from skin disease is permitted [Since a female sufferer from skin disease is not restricted in her sexual activity as will be shown in the next sentence.] . He shall dwell outside his tent [Lev. 14:8. The “tent” is an euphemism for the wife with whom he sleeps, as in Deut. 5:27, where Moses reports that he was commanded by God to tell the people “to return to their tents” after the epiphany of Sinai where they had been forbidden intercourse for three days prior (Ex. 19:15), except for Moses who was commanded “to stay with Me” (Deut. 5:28). The use of the masculine suffix, his tent, is interpreted to exclude the female from restriction of sexual activity. The verse refers to the healed sufferer from skin disease in the process of his purification. There is a dispute whether the prohibition of sexual relations extends to the time of actual sickness. The Babylonian sources [Keritut 8b, also Moˋed qatan 7a; Sifra Mesoraˋ Parashah 2(11)] are unanimous that the prohibition does not extend. This also seems to be implied by Mishnah Negaˋim 14:2. But the text here implies that any male sufferer from skin disease is forbidden sexual relations (which in Sifra is labelled as opinion of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah.)] but not outside her tent. A male sufferer from skin disease with a female sufferer from flux is forbidden; a male sufferer from skin disease with a female sufferer from skin disease is forbidden [Since the prohibitions only depend on the status of the male.] .

48It was stated [Babli 3a, Tosephta 1:15.] : “The House of Shammai say, a Pharisee sufferer from gonorrhea may not eat with a vulgar [A vulgar person is one who does not observe the rules of purity outside of the Temple and cannot be trusted to tithe his produce. A Pharisee is a person who observes these obligations with all their rabbinic additions, cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay. It is possible that here the labels “vulgar” and “Pharisee” refer only to the observation of the rules of purity in daily life.] sufferer from gonorrhea, but the House of Hillel permit it.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? This one suffers from gonorrhea and that one suffers from gonorrhea [Since the sufferer from gonorrhea is severely impure, even if he is Pharisee he cannot eat anything in purity.] . But what is the reason of the House of Shammai? If he gets used to him during the days of his impurity he will remain used to him in the days of his purity [A pure Pharisee cannot eat with a vulgar person because the latter by his touch will make the food impure.] . The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya commanded Rav [Who came from Babylonia, an impure country, where eating one’s food in purity is impossible in principle.] , if you are able to eat profane food in purity the entire year long, eat it. But if not, eat it seven days per year [The Days of Repentance between New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement [ROSH Rosh Hashanah, end, in the name of Raviah (ed. Aptowitzer) vol. 2 p. 208, cf. the earlier sources noted there, Note 6].] .

49[This baraita is the end of the Babylonian Mishnah Soṭah (quoted in Avodah zarah 20b); it is not in the Yerushalmi Mishnah. The entire paragraph appears in a slightly different version (adapted to the Babylonian Mishnah) in the hand of the first corrector in Šeqalim 3:4; the differences will be indicated in the Notes. The Šeqalim text, with the Babylonian version, consist- ently has the full form “a brings to b”. There also exists a Genizah text edited by L. Ginzberg (op. cit. Note 25 p. 66ff.) which here is too fragmentary to be of much use. The different version has the sequence cleanliness purity holiness meekness fear of sin piety Holy Spirit resurrection. In Yerushalmi sources it also is found in Cant. rabba 1(9) whereas the version in the text here is in the Munich ms. of the Babli Avodah zarah 20b. The Šeqalim text is reproduced in Midrash Prov. Chap. 15[32]. The different implications naturally require different verses.] “From here did Rebbi Phineas ben Yair say, promptitude brings to cleanliness, cleanliness brings to purity, purity brings to holiness, holiness to meekness, meekness to fear of sin, fear of sin to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit to piety, piety to the Resurrection of the Dead, the Resurrection of the Dead through Elijah, may his remembrance be a blessing.”“Promptitude to cleanliness,” he finishes, and he atones [It seems that the correct quote is given in Šeqalim: וְכִלָּה֙ מִכַּפֵּ֣ר he finishes to atone (Lev. 16:20). The High Priest, who has to perform all the rites of the day of Atonement unaided, has to be quick because only if he finishes all required ceremonies will there be atonement.] .“Cleanliness to purity,” the Cohen shall atone for her, then she will be pure [Lev. 12:8.] .“Purity to holiness,” he shall purify it and sanctify it [Lev. 16:19.] .“Holiness to meekness,” for so says the High and Elevated One, Who thrones eternally, His name is Holy, in sublimity and holiness I dwell, and the suppressed and of meek spirit [Is. 57:15. The verse is explained differently in the Babli, Megillah 31a.] .“Meekness to fear of sin,” the consequence of meekness is fear of the Eternal [Prov. 22:4. In the first quote, the implied meaning “consequence” is intended, in the second the original meaning “heel”.] . Rebbi Isaac bar Eleazar said, what wisdom proclaimed as a crown to its head, meekness made a heel for its sandal [Latin solea, -ae f. “sandal”.] , for it is written, the head of wisdom is the fear of the Eternal [Ps. 111:10. The usual meaning is the beginning of wisdom is …] , but it is written, the heel of meekness is fear of the Eternal [Prov. 22:4. In the first quote, the implied meaning “consequence” is intended, in the second the original meaning “heel”.] .“Fear of sin to the Holy Spirit,” as it is written, then you will understand and knowledge of God you will find [Prov. 2:5.] .“The Holy Spirit to piety,” as it is written, then You spoke in a vision to Your pious [Ps. 89:20.] .“Piety to the Resurrection of the Dead,” as it is written, I shall give My Spirit into you and you will live [Ez. 37:14.] .“The Resurrection of the Dead through Elijah, may his remembrance be a blessing,” as it is written, behold I am sending to you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Eternal, that he turn the fathers’ hearts to the sons and the sons’ hearts to their fathers [Mal. 3:23–24.] .It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Anybody permanently in the Land of Israel who eats his profane food in purity, speaks in the holy language, and recites the Shemaˋ mornings and evenings is assured to participate in the life of the World to Come [In Šeqalim: “… eats his produce in purity, …, may be told that …”.] .

50MISHNAH: These [The Yerushalmi version (and Maimonides’s text) refers to the preceding Mishnaiot 1–6. The Babli’s version ואלו “and the following” refers to the following Mishnaiot.] are of the practices which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon [He is famous for having explained away the apparent contradictions between the book of Ezechiel and the Pentateuch; his explanations have not come down to us. “Ben Garon” or “Ben Gurion” seems to have been his family name.] , when they came to visit him. They voted and the House of Shammai had the majority over the House of Hillel; eighteen items they decided on that day [These 18 prohibitions which were forced by the House of Shammai on the House of Hillel are only partially the rules explained in the Mishnaiot here; different lists are given in the Talmudim.] .

51HALAKHAH: Mishnah [Quote from Mishnah 7.] : “These [The Yerushalmi version (and Maimonides’s text) refers to the preceding Mishnaiot 1–6. The Babli’s version ואלו “and the following” refers to the following Mishnaiot.] are of the practices which were pronounced at the upper floor of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon [He is famous for having explained away the apparent contradictions between the book of Ezechiel and the Pentateuch; his explanations have not come down to us. “Ben Garon” or “Ben Gurion” seems to have been his family name.] , when they came to visit him,” etc. [Cf. Tosephta 1:16–17, Babli 153b (17a).] “This day was hard for Israel like the day on which the Golden C alf was made. Rebbi Eliezer said, on that day they filled the bushel to overflow. Rebbi Joshua said, on that day they filled the bushel to the rim. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, if it was deficient and they filled it it would have been reasonable, as with an amphora full of nuts; if you fill it with sesame seeds it will be strengthened [There is much empty space between the nuts where sesame seeds may fall it. If they settle at the bottom, the amphora becomes more stable. If it had said, מַחֲזֶּקֶת אוֹתָם the translation would have been “contains them”.] . Rebbi Joshua said to him, if it had been full and they diminished it, it would have been reasonable, as with an amphora filled with oil; if you add water to it it dilutes the oil. [They are engaged in a discussion about the principles of Pharisaic Judaism, couched in a dispute whether to compare the legalistic rabbinic framework to a bushel of dry or fluid measure. R. Eliezer, an adherent of the House of Shammai who was a student of the Hillelite Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai, compares biblical commandments to nuts in a barrel and rabbinic additions to small grains which fill the spaces between the nuts and give stability to the amphora. His view of Judaism is static; he views all rabbinic enactments as positive. By contrast, R. Joshua compares biblical commandments to oil; his view of Judaism is dynamic. He accepts rabbinic enactments only if they do not threaten to cause overflow, in which case biblical commandments may be lost because of rabbinic stringencies. He has a dim view of the ordinances from the House of Ḥananiah ben Ḥizqiah ben Garon.] ”

52Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated: The students of the House of Shammai were standing downstairs and killing the students of the House of Hillel. It was stated, six of them went up; the rest were standing around them with swords and lances.

53It was stated, eighteen things they decided, in eighteen they were a majority and in eighteen they were divided [In this opinion, there were 54 items up for discussion, 18 were unanimously decided, 18 where the House of Shammai had a majority but it was not unanimous and not accepted by the House of Hillel, and 18 where the discussion was inconclusive. This explains the difficulty both Talmudim have to come up with the list of the 18 decrees which were definitely issued. In the Babli 14b only two groups of 18 are mentioned.] . The following they decided: About Gentiles’ bread, and about their cheeses, and about their oil [The prohibitions, later partially lifted, of Gentile bread, cheese, and olive oil, are discussed in Avodah zarah Chapter 2; a copy of some of the discussion is reproduced later in the present Chapter.] , and about their daughters [A Gentile female is treated from birth as permanently impure like a menstruating woman, making sexual relations with her a rabbinic deadly sin. Babli Avodah zarah 36b.] , and about their semen, and about their urine [While biblically a living Gentile cannot be impure and neither are his body fluids, rabbinically his semen and urine are treated as if he were impure as a sufferer from gonorrhea, to avoid homosexual contacts. Babli Avodah zarah 36b.] , and about the rules of a person with an emission [The restrictions on religious performances imposed on a person having had sexual relations or an emission of semen before he went to a miqweh, as detailed in Tractate Berakhot 3:4, Notes 173–200.] , and about the rules of the land of Gentiles [The land outside the territory of Israel obviously was considered impure already in the times of the prophet Amos (Am. 6:17). Who formalized the rules of this impurity is a matter of controversy (Babli 14b). It seems that the new decision was to decree impurity for regions of the Holy Land inhabited by Gentiles (Ḥagigah 3:4, 79b l. 75, Babli 25a).] . There we have stated [Mishnah Zavim 8:12. The Mishnah is also quoted and discussed in the Babli 13b as list of the 18 items.] : “The following make heave unusable. One who eats food impure in the first degree, and one who eats food impure in the second degree [Heave must be eaten in purity (Num. 18:11,13). According to biblical standards, only original impurity or at most its first derivative can make food impure. Therefore heave which was touched by a person who ingested food one or two steps removed from original impurity should become impure in the second or third degree and therefore be permitted for the Cohen. By rabbinic usage, heave may become impure in the second degree and invalid in the third.] , and one who drinks impure drinks [While solid food impure in the k-th degree imparts impurity of the (k+l)st degree on what it touches, by rabbinic practice impure fluid always causes impurity of the first degree in what comes in touch with it. This is a precaution because the body fluids of a sufferer from gonorrhea are carriers of original impurity.] , and one who comes with his head and most of his body in drawn water [This is a purely rabbinic decree instituted so people should not substitute a bathtub for a ritual bath (miqweh).] , and a pure person on whose head and most of his body fell three log drawn water [This is an appendix to the decree described in the preceding Note. A log is slightly more than half a liter.] , and a scroll [A Torah scroll makes hands which touch it impure in the second degree. This was instituted to hinder people to store food next to the Torah scroll, which would expose the scroll to the danger of being eaten by mice. As a consequence one has to cover one’s hand with the tallit if for some reason one has to manipulate the parchment with one’s hands.] , and hands [Washed hands are pure. They remain pure only as long as one is aware of their washed status. At the moment one’s attention is diverted from this, they revert to the status of unwashed hands and automatically are impure in the second degree (even if the person’s body remains pure.) Therefore touching heave with unwashed hands invalidates heave as impure in the third degree. (Cf. Tractate Yadaim).] , and the Ṭevul yom [By biblical decree, an impure person who purifies himself by immersion in a miqweh may consume sanctified food only after the next sundown (Lev. 22:7). The biblical text does not specify what the status is of the person between immersion and sundown, when he is called ṭevul yom “immersed during daytime”. While he is pure, by rabbinic convention (but following some opinions by biblical decree) he invalidates sanctified food by his touch as if he were impure in the second degree (cf. Sotah 5:2 Notes 42,46,47,68.)] , and food and vessels which became impure by fluids [While solid food impure in the k-th degree imparts impurity of the (k+l)st degree on what it touches, by rabbinic practice impure fluid always causes impurity of the first degree in what comes in touch with it. This is a precaution because the body fluids of a sufferer from gonorrhea are carriers of original impurity.] .”

54The rabbis of Caesarea said, of those which they decided there were seven of those where they had a majority [They disagree with the statement that 36 items were discussed; some decrees were passed by a majority short of unanimity. Cf. Babli 17b.] . The others are the following: A person being on the road when it gets dark gives his wallet to a Non-Jew [A Jew on the road late on Friday evening may give his valuables to a non-Jew and retrieve them later. While in general it is forbidden to ask a Gentile to do something for a Jew which is forbidden to himself, this is an exception.] . Similarly, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux because of inducement to sin. All movables transmit impurity by the thickness of the yoke [The standard bar of a yoke has circumference of one hand-breadth, therefore a diameter of 1/π hand-breadth. By biblical decree, a “tent” under which there is a corpse induces original impurity in everything under it if only it is susceptible to impurity. By definition, a “tent” is any cover at least one hand-breadth wide. By rabbinic decree this is extended to round beams of circumference of one hand-breadth. Tosephta 1:18.] . How one harvests grapes on a broken field [A “broken field” is a field which contained a grave (of uncertain location) ploughed under, where the entire field might be impure since a bone may have been dislocated by the plough. The problem is to harvest the grapes in purity to make pure wine; Mishnah Ahilut 18:1. The House of Hillel have a prescription for this; the House of Shammai disagree and require the grapes to be cut from the vine with a flintstone knife (or some other permanently pure implement) and transported in a basket woven of willow twigs, which is impervious to impurity. It is asserted that practice has to follow the House of Shammai.] . One who puts vessels under the pipe [The waters of a miqweh become invalid if they are in a vessel. If one builds a conduit of spring water into the miqweh which never had the status of a vessel, this is fine. But if the pipe is supported somewhere by vessels, the House of Shammai declare the miqweh invalid in all cases, against a more lenient opinion of the House of Hillel who declare it valid if the vessels were forgotten, not put there intentionally. Tosephta 1:19.] . For six doubts one burns heave [Mishnah Tahorot 4:5. While in general it is forbidden to burn edible heave which is not certainly impure, there is a list of six cases in which one considers a doubt as equivalent to certitude of impurity.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, also the growth of heave [If heave of grain is taken as seed grain, the entire crop has the status of heave even though by biblical rules the new growth would not have been heave. (Babli 17b; Mishnah Terumot 9:4 Note 57).] . The following they decided: the first ten and the remainder from what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: On that day they decided about their bread, and their cheeses, and their wine [The prohibitions, later partially lifted, of Gentile bread, cheese, and olive oil, are discussed in Avodah zarah Chapter 2; a copy of some of the discussion is reproduced later in the present Chapter.] , and their vinegar [Which may have been wine originally. Wine vinegar needs certification of kosher supervision.] , and their fish brine [Which may be from forbidden fish, without fins and scales.] , and their muries [Latin muria, -ae or muries, -ei f. “brine, fish sauce”; cf. Avodah zarah 2:4, Note 241.] , and their preserves, and their parboiled food, and their corned food [Anything cooked by Gentiles is rabbinically forbidden under the rules and exceptions detailed in Tractate Avodah zarah Chapter 2.] , and on split grain, and on ground food, and on peeled barley [Mishnah Makhshirin 6:2. Produce may become impure only if it had been “prepared” for it by intentional contact with one of the fluids which may cause impurity (water, wine, olive oil, blood, milk, bee’s honey). It is assumed that any grain undergoing some manufacturing process was moistened to facilitate the production; therefore it is treated as certainly susceptible to impurity.] [טִיסָּנִי is Greek πτισάνη, Latin transcription ptisana. tisana, -ae, f. peeled barley.] , on their speech [This item is not clear. It may mean a prohibition to study Greek or Latin, or it may be identical to the next item, that Gentile testimony is inadmissible in a rabbinic court. The first interpretation is preferable since then the statement of R. Simeon contains exactly 18 items, i. e., it is his list of the 18 items.] , and on their testimony [The only testimony of Gentiles admitted in a rabbinic court is the testimony of a Jew that a Gentile gave certain information without being asked.] , and on their gifts [One should not in general accept gifts from a Gentile; cf. Avodah zarah Chapter 1.] , on their sons [While biblically a living Gentile cannot be impure and neither are his body fluids, rabbinically his semen and urine are treated as if he were impure as a sufferer from gonorrhea, to avoid homosexual contacts. Babli Avodah zarah 36b.] , and on their daughters [A Gentile female is treated from birth as permanently impure like a menstruating woman, making sexual relations with her a rabbinic deadly sin. Babli Avodah zarah 36b.] , and on their firstlings [This also is not clear. It may refer to the rule that a firstling born of an animal partially owned by a Gentile is profane.] .

55[This and the following paragraphs are from Avodah zarah 2:9, partially also from Ševiˋit, Terumot, and Maˋaser Šeni; fully documented with variant readings and explained there in Notes 347–386. The order of the paragraphs is different. One discusses the original list of the 18 decrees.] Their bread. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: this is of the practices of obfuscation. Rebbi Yose said, so I asked before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: What means “of the practices of obfuscation? Do we say, at a place where Jewish bread is available it is logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it? Or at a place where Jewish bread is not available it would be logical that Gentile bread should be permitted and they obfuscated about it and forbade it? Rebbi Mana said, is there any obfuscation for prohibition? But is bread not like cooking of Gentiles? Are we saying: At a place where no Jewish cooking is available it would be logical that Gentile cooking should be permitted? But it must be the following: At a place where Jewish bread is not available it would be logical that Gentile bread should be forbidden and they obfuscated about it and permitted it because of the necessities of life. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa: Following the words of him who was permitting, but only from the store; but one does not do this.

56They said before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated thus: Food you shall buy from them with money and eat, and also water you may acquire [This and the following paragraphs are from Avodah zarah 2:9, partially also from Ševiˋit, Terumot, and Maˋaser Šeni; fully documented with variant readings and explained there in Notes 347–386. The order of the paragraphs is different. One discusses the original list of the 18 decrees.] , etc. As water is not changed from its natural state, so anything which was not changed from its natural state. They objected: Are there not their dry beans, פנקריסין and קובטיות, roasted grain, and hot water permitted? One understands all of these because they can be soaked and return to their former state. What about roasted grain? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav said: Any food which can be eaten alone raw is not in the category of Gentile cooking but one may use it for eruv tavšilin [The symbolic common meal of the dwellers at a dead-end street which converts it into a private domain, cf. Note 142.] . How does Rebbi Ḥiyya explain food you shall buy from them? You shall buy with food. If you fed him you bought him. If he causes you trouble buy him with food or otherwise ply him with him money. They said, that is what Rebbi Jonathan did. When he saw that a superior came to his town, he sent him an honor gift. What did he say? If a suit involving an orphan or a widow came he would have a way to mollify him.

57Their cheese. Rebbi Jeremiah said, why is a Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of admixture from forbidden animals. It was stated so: “There is nothing to worry if the Jew stands with the herd while the Gentile milks and brings to him.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Why is a Gentile’s milk forbidden? Because of uncovering. Let him make cheese! Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, because of the poison left between the holes. It was stated so: There are three kinds of poison; one swims, one sinks down, and one is similar to a net on top. In the days of Rebbi Jeremiah the barrels of the Great Assembly were uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die. The later ones died. I say that it was sinking poison. Workers were in the field. The water pitcher was uncovered. The first ones drank and did not die. The later ones died. I say that it was sinking poison.

58[This paragraph is from Terumot 8:5, Notes 139–142.] “Uncovering is not a danger for oil and vinegar, brine, and muries, and honey, but Rebbi Simeon forbids. The Sages agree with Rebbi Simeon when it was seen pecking.” It was stated thus [Tosephta Terumot 7:17, Babli Avodah zarah 30b.] : “If a watermelon was pecked and ten people ate from it or wine was uncovered and ten people drank from it, it is forbidden to eat or drink after them; I say that there was sinking poison.”

59Their oil. Who forbade the oil? Rav Jehudah said, Daniel forbade it. Daniel was careful not to defile himself by the king’s repast and the wine he drank [Dan. 1:8.] . Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, but some say it in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: For it they were climbing up King’s Mountain and were killed for it.

60And who permitted it? Rebbi and his court permitted it. At three places is Rebbi Jehudah the Prince called “our teachers,” in divorce documents, oil, and a sole. They should have called him “a permissive court”, for any court which permits three [previously forbidden] things is called “permissive court.” Rebbi Yudan ben Rebbi Ismael said, his court disagreed with him about bills of divorce.Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state [Mishnah Idiut 1:5.] , “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.

61Isaac bar Samuel bar Martha went down to Nisibis. He met Rebbi Simlai the Southerner who sat and expounded: Rebbi and his court permitted the oil. Samuel accepted this and ate. Rav did not eat. Samuel told him, eat! Otherwise I shall declare you a rebellious Elder. He answered him, when I still was there I knew who complained about it, Rebbi Simlai the Southerner. He told him, did he say it in the name of himself? No, in the name of Rebbi Jehudah the Prince. He bothered him and he ate.

62Their daughters. Rebbi Eleazar said, in seven places it is written do not intermarry with them [The text as quoted is written only once, Deut. 7:3, an equivalent text is Ex. 34:16. In any case, since the prohibition is biblical, how can it be counted as rabbinic decree? Babli Avodah zarah 36b. In the Genizah fragment published by L. Ginzberg (p. 67) one reads בשבועה מקומות “in oath places”. S. Liebermann wants to delete “places” and retain the statement “an oath, it is written”, i. e., it cannot be a rabbinic prohibition. The text as it appears here is quoted in Soṭah 1:8 (Note 285)] . Rebbi Abun said, to forbid seven peoples [As enumerated in Deut. 7:1. The prohibition of all other Gentiles is rabbinic.] . Rebbi Joshua from Ono stated, to forbid their eggs. Rebbi Ismael stated, and the ostrich’s daughter [Lev. 11:16.] . This is the ostrich’s egg [Eggs of impure birds are forbidden like the birds. Babli Ḥulin 64b.] .

63Their semen. But did not Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, a Gentile’s semen is pure for semen cannot be discharged without urine [Since the rules of impurity of genital discharges were given only to the “children of Israel” (Lev. 15:2). Any purity imputed to Gentiles must be rabbinic only; Babli Niddah 34a.] .

64About the rules of a person with an emission [The restrictions on religious performances imposed on a person having had sexual relations or an emission of semen before he went to a miqweh, as detailed in Tractate Berakhot 3:4, Notes 173–200.] . Rebbi Abba bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi. He may study practical rules but not homiletics. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yose: He may repeat known rules but he may not expound the Mishnah. Some want to say, he may not mention the Divine Name [This paragraph is a short quote from Berakhot 3:4 (Notes 186–189); Babli Berakhot 22a.] .

65And about the rules for the land of Gentiles. [This paragraph is from Ketubot 8:11, explained there in Notes 96–105. Cf. Babli 14b.] But did not Rebbi Zeˋira bar Abinna [Read with Ketubot: “R. Zeˋira, R. Abuna”.] say in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Joseph ben Yoezer from Ṣereda and Yose ben Joḥanan from Jerusalem decreed impurity of the land of Gentiles and of glass vessels; Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Jehudah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Šetaḥ decreed impurity of metal vessels; Hillel and Shammai decreed about purity of hands [They codified popular practice that unwashed hands are always impure in the second degree.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Levi: so practice had been in their hands but they forgot it. The secondary [authorities] came and agreed with the intent of the first ones. To teach you that everything for which the Court made a real effort will in the end be confirmed for them as it was said to Moses on Sinai. This comes as Rebbi Mana said, for it is not an empty matter for you [Deut. 32:42. Quoted in Sukkah 4:1.] , if it is an empty matter, it is from you since you do not exert yourselves for it. For it is your life. When is it your life? Any time you are exerting yourselves for it.

66Samuel said, they taught this only about the eighteen. Therefore, other than the eighteen even a lesser [court] may abolish [A court of lesser standing than the one which issued a decree may abolish it as long as it is not of the Eighteen Decrees described earlier.] . They objected, is there not the Sabbatical year? This is not of the eighteen items, and Rebbi Joḥanan (said it) [The word was written by the scribe; it was deleted by the corrector. As S. Liebermann has shown, the deletion is unjustified. R. Joḥanan both formulated a tradition and questioned its validity. The following text is from Ševiˋit 1:1, Notes 6–7.] and asked about it. Rebbi Krispedai [In Ševiˋit 1:1, his name is Crispus.] in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rabban Gamliel and his court abolished the prohibitions of the first two terms [Agricultural work is forbidden in the Sabbatical year. In Tractate Ševiˋit, rabbinic interpretation infers from verses that also the preparation of fields or orchards for the new sowing or planting season, in summer and early fall, is forbidden in the months preceding New Year’s day of the Sabbatical. These terms are different for sowing and planting; they are referred to as “the two periods.” However, since the biblical commandment of the Sabbatical is intrinsically connected with that of the Jubilee, it cannot be in force when the Jubilee is not in force, i. e., if not all of Israel dwells on the ancestral land distributed by Joshua. Therefore during the Second Commonwealth the Sabbatical was a rabbinic institution. Rabban Gamliel (of Jabneh, the first Patriarch after the destruction of the Second Temple) decided that in the absence of the Temple the rabbinic institution of the Sabbatical should continue without extensions. While his Court was the highest authority in his time, he could not compete in standing with the Men of the Great Assembly who established the rules for the Second Commonwealth.] . Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] [The text in parentheses is that of the Leiden ms., the [correct] one in brackets is from the Geniza fragment which is legible at this place.] asked. Did we not state [Mishnah Idiut 1:5.] , “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? There came Rav Abun, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: they taught this only about other [decrees] than the eighteen. Therefore, the eighteen even a greater one cannot abolish, because they fought for it with their lives. Rebbi Mana said, this makes it reasonable that it is not so; since this is a case of force it is invalid [The first argument was that the 18 decrees must be inviolate because people were killed for it; R. Mana’s argument is that the decrees were imposed by force and therefore are intrinsically invalid.] . They objected, is there not oil which is of the eighteen? And Rebbi (Jonathan) [Joḥanan] [The text in parentheses is that of the Leiden ms., the [correct] one in brackets is from the Geniza fragment which is legible at this place.] objected! Rav Cahana the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Aḥa bent it in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Oil, they abolished what was abolished [As stated earlier, the decree about Gentile olive oil never was accepted by the people; it never became enforceable law.] .

67Naḥman, the son of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani: The five kinds of purification sacrifices which are left to die, if the Court decides to abolish, they may abolish [Mishnah Temurah 3:1. A purification sacrifice is an obligation; it cannot be offered voluntarily nor can there be more than one sacrifice for one obligation. Also it is most holy; its sacred status cannot be abolished. Therefore the calf born to an animal dedicated as purification sacrifice, or a substitute for such an animal, or one whose owner had died, or a dedicated one which became too old to be sacrificed, or one which was lost and found later when it had developed a defect and the owner in the meantime had offered a substitute, are intrinsically holy but forbidden as sacrifices. The rule, classified in the Babli (Bekhorot 16a, Temurah 18a) as “tradition”, i. e., being part of the original institutions of post-exilic Judaism, possibly older, is treated here as rabbinic interpretation.] . Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that means that they are not sent to die but are used for voluntary sacrifices. But as far as sacrificing on the altar is concerned, no purification sacrifice destined to die may be sacrificed [While biblically the animal cannot become a sacrifice in any form, if it develops a blemish it can be sold as profane and the money used for additional Temple sacrifices.] .

68MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink [Blocks of soot or sepia used to make India ink. This and the following rules are based on a fundamental disagreement between the House of Shammai, who hold that a person may not use his vessels for any procedure which he could not do on the Sabbath, and the House of Hillel who allow a person’s machines to work for him as long as he does not risk temptation to interfere with their working on the Sabbath.] , chemicals, or vetch [For animal feed.] , unless they will be soaked when it still is daylight; but the House of Hillel permit it.

69HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not soak ink [Blocks of soot or sepia used to make India ink. This and the following rules are based on a fundamental disagreement between the House of Shammai, who hold that a person may not use his vessels for any procedure which he could not do on the Sabbath, and the House of Hillel who allow a person’s machines to work for him as long as he does not risk temptation to interfere with their working on the Sabbath.] , chemicals, or vetch,” [Quote from Mishnah 9.] etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? Six days you shall work and do all your deeds [Ex. 20:9. The argument is quoted in Tosephta 1:21, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 149.] . All your deeds, finish them by daylight. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day [Ex. 23:12.] . How do the House of Hillel explain the reason of the House of Shammai, six days you shall work and do all your deeds? When they work with their hands [While work on the Sabbath is forbidden, letting machines work for you on the Sabbath is permitted.] . How do the House of Shammai explain the reason of the House of Hillel, six days you shall work on your works and on [the seventh] day? Following what was stated [Tosephta 1:23, Babli 18a; Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Yoḥai p. 149. The Tosephta stated rules common to the Houses of Hillel and Shammai even if the reasons for permission or prohibition may be different for the Houses. It is clear from the Tosephta that the House of Shammai forbid soaking ink in water during the Sabbath only because nothing of it is usable when the Sabbath begins, while watering a garden or smoking out lice from a garment is useful even if done only for a short time. The Babli disagrees, 18a (Explanation of S. Liebermann.)] , “One opens a water canal leading into a garden on Friday evening and it is continuously watered on the Sabbath. One puts ointment [Greek κολλύριον, τό.] on an eye on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts a compress on a wound on Friday evening and it is continuously healing on the Sabbath. One puts burning incense under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously smoked on the Sabbath. One puts sulfur under clothing on Friday evening and it is continuously sulfured on the Sabbath. One may not give wheat into a water mill on Friday evening unless it will be completely ground as long as it is daylight.” Rebbi Ḥaggai said, because it is making noise [In the Babli 18a this is an argument of the Babylonian Rabba. Since some grain will have been turned into flour, without this argument also the House of Shammai would permit milling flour in a watermill on the Sabbath.] . Rebbi Yose said to him, this is fine if one holds with Rebbi Jehudah. But for the rabbis, just as they say because not every single drop was started, so they say here because not every grain kernel was started [This refers to Mishnah 2:4 where R. Jehudah permits feeding a burning light on the Sabbath with oil dripping from a vessel above the fire while the majority forbid it.] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because he is apt to forget and will push the peg [According to him by biblical law milling on the Sabbath in an automatic mill is permitted according to both Houses; the prohibition is purely rabbinic; both Houses agree that it should be forbidden because the miller will hear when the milling is done and move a peg on his mill, which is a Sabbath desecration.] .

70The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer; the House of Hillel put a question to the House of Shammai which they could not answer. [Tosephta 1:21.] “The House of Hillel said to the House of Shammai, do you not agree with us that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press [The House of Shammai agrees with the House of Hillel that one may fill oil- or wine-press on Friday afternoon, install the pressure mechanism, and let the fluid ooze out during the Sabbath. The reason is that the forbidden work on the Sabbath would be the crushing of olives or grapes, not the flowing out of oil or grape juice. But this crushing is done immediately when pressure is exerted, on Friday.] ? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, each drop already was dislocated [The essential work was done before the Sabbath started, cf. Note 355.] ; here what can you say?

71The House of Shammai put a question to the House of Hillel which they could not answer. [Tosephta 1:20.] “The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, do you not agree with us that one does not roast meat, or onions, or an egg, unless they be completely roasted when it is still daylight [Cooking by human intervention on the Sabbath is forbidden. Since roasting is a short process which needs constant attention, it cannot be done on the Sabbath.] ? They did not find an answer.” Rebbi Zeˋira said, if I would not put my head between the lions I could give a reason. There, onion, meat, or egg, usually are flipped [If one roasts on a hot metal plate one has to continuously flip the meat etc. to avoid it being burned. If one roasts on a spit one has to continuously turn the spit. In both cases, one may not do this by biblical decree.] ; here, what can you say? Rebbi Yudan said, if they were roasted like Ben Derosai’s food [The technical term for very rare food. Technically cooked food is considered cooked before the Sabbath if it was rare by sundown. But this cannot apply to roasted food for people who do not eat their food very rare.] . They forbade something which usually is flipped unless it be completely roasted as long as it is still day. Rebbi Mana said, it is not reasonable that it should be permitted. For they can say to them, how can you respond to us with something which ordinarily is completely roasted when it still is day about something which ordinarily cannot be completely soaked when it still is day [R. Mana argues that even for the House of Shammai very rare cooked food is considered completely cooked for the rules of the Sabbath, the only exception being roasted food which requires constant flipping since otherwise the House of Hillel could argue that the objection of the House of Shammai compares apples and oranges.] ?

72MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not put bundles of flax into an oven unless they are steamed when it is still daylight [Flax is first soaked in water, then heated in an oven to whiten the fibers. At the start of the heating process the soaked fibers give off steAm.] , nor wool into a vat unless it may absorb the dye, but the House of Hillel permit it.

73HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does not put bundles of flax into an oven,” [Quote from Mishnah 10. The discussion is only about the second part of the Mishnah, about the dyer and his vat.] etc. What profit does he have? Rebbi Abbahu said, for example these villagers who do not care [Which dyer would start dying on Friday afternoon when he knows the he will not have control over the process and cannot guarantee the outcome? If he dyes cloth for a rural population which is not insistent on quality. Then he can use his installation also on the Sabbath and reduce his overhead to undercut the competition.] .Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Only if the vat was taken off. But if the vat was fixed, it is forbidden, since he will be afraid that his dye will have been absorbed and he will add water [Even the House of Hillel will allow only to keep the cloth in the dye but not to heat it on the Sabbath since that would require periodically adding water which is a deadly sin on the Sabbath.] . Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: The House of Hillel learn permitted work from forbidden work. Would it not be forbidden if he did it on the Sabbath? When he did similarly as long as it is still daytime it is permitted [If the vat is taken off the fire before sundown, the House of Hillel have absolutely no restrictions about what may be done Friday afternoons.] .

74MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not set traps for wild animals, or birds, or fish unless they may be caught when it is still daylight, but the House of Hillel permit it.

75HALAKHAH: [Quote from Mishnah 10. The entire piece is copied from Beṣah 3:2 (י); it is a commentary on the Mishnah there. The Genizah text is reasonably complete here (G).] Mishnah: “The House of Shammai say, one does set traps for wild animals, or birds, of fish,” etc. Who informs? If the trap was sprung, it is certain that they were caught when it still was day. But if the trap was not sprung, it is certain that they were not caught when it still was day. And even if the trap was sprung, in worry one may say that they were not caught when it still was day [Mishnah Beṣah 3:2 reads: “One may not take from traps set for game, birds, or fish on the eve of a holiday unless one know that it was caught before the onset of the holiday. It happened that a Gentile brought fish to Rabban Gamliel who said they are permitted but I do not want to accept from him.” The question arises how can one know that an animal was trapped unless one go there and take it out before the holiday. Does the first part of the Mishnah have any practical application? The answer is that by observation from afar one may determine what happened. The main subject of Tractate Beṣah is the requirement, based ostensibly on Ex. 16:5, that on the Sabbath and holidays only food prepared beforehand may be consumed. Since cooking on the Sabbath is forbidden, there is no problem regarding Sabbath observation. For the holidays there first is the problem of extending a commandment given for the Sabbath to holidays and second the fact that cooking and other preparation of food is permitted (Ex. 13:16). Therefore the application of the requirement of preparation can refer only to the accessibility of raw materials. If an animal is trapped before the onset of the holiday it is prepared in this sense and may be taken and turned into food on the holiday. Another question then is whether the extension of Ex. 16:5 to holidays is considered biblical (when cases of doubt have to be resolved restrictively) or rabbinic (when cases of doubt have to be resolved leniently).] . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if it was set in a forest. You should know that it is so since we have stated “fish”. Are fish not there where they are found? Also here at a place where game and birds are found [The rules prescribed are a legal fiction (in the Babli, Beṣah 24b, ascribed to the last generation of Tannaןm). They can be relied on only in situations where the probability of correctness is significantly larger than 50%. (Quoted by Tosaphot 17b s.v. אלא).] .

76Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi instituted that it should not happen [In the editio princeps and all later editions, the word לְהַל in the Leiden ms. (לְהָל in G) is read as להל׳, abbreviation of להלכה “as practice”. The evidence of G excludes this interpretation. The word is otherwise unknown in the rabbinic, Hebrew or Aramaic, vocabulary. It seems to be the same as Arabic لهلة which in Wehr’s Dictionary is described as “used in wishes contrary to what one expects to happen” or in Brelot “(discours) très faible”. R. Ḥiyya reluctantly formulated Rebbi’s ruling (or. R. Zeˋira Rav’s). The expression is not in Beṣah, but there seems to be no reason to delete it from the text.] . They wanted to say, they are permitted the next day [This now refers to the fish brought by a Gentile to Rabban Gamliel. Did he want to say that they can be handled by Jews on the holiday but not eaten on that day or are they as if prepared by a Jew beforehand (Babli Beṣah 24a)?] . Rebbi Ḥizqiah and Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias of Barat Hauran: They are really permitted. They wanted to say, its doubt made it permitted. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Jonathan both say, if in doubt whether it was prepared it is forbidden [As explained earlier, the disagreement is whether the requirement of prior preparation is biblical or rabbinic.] . But Rebbi Joḥanan said, in doubt whether it was prepared it is permitted.

77The Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one said a Gentile needs preparation, the other said, a Gentile does not need preparation [As explained earlier, the disagreement is whether the requirement of prior preparation is biblical or rabbinic.] . We did not know who said this and who said that. From that Rav refrained from coming before the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya who asked him, where have you been? He told him: a caravan passed by and I ate figs from them [The Gentile caravan arriving on the holiday.] this implies that he said, a Gentile does not need preparation.

78A student of [Rebbi] [Reading of G and י.] Simai went to Antipatris [This is generally accepted as explanation of the otherwise unexplained and diverse names reported for the place.] ; they brought him Morocco-plums [According to H. L. Fleischer, New Greek δαμάσκηνος “Damascus plum”; δαμάσκηνα “Damascus plum tree”.] and he ate. A student of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi went there; they brought him Morocco-plums and he did not eat. He came and told it to his teacher who said to him, this one follows the argument of Rebbi Simai, as Rebbi Simai said, a Gentile does not need preparation. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The red grapes in a vineyard are forbidden. Rav Huna in the name of Rav: The hard dates on palm leaves are permitted [Grapes which still are hard at harvest time and left to ripen in late autumn do not fall down by themselves; one must assume that they were plucked from the vine on the day they were brought; one may not accept them from a Gentile who brings them on a holiday. But dates in a similar case will fall down, one may assume that they were collected from the ground and may be accepted.] .

79MISHNAH: They House of Shammai say, one does not sell to a Non-Jew, nor put a load on him unless he may reach a nearby destination [Where he can unload. While the Gentile is not obligated to keep the Sabbath, the House of Shammai prohibit the Jew from causing any work that would have been forbidden to himself. The House of Hillel disagree since the Gentile is an intelligent being responsible for his own actions.] , but the House of Hillel permit it.

80HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “They House of Shammai say, one sells to a Non-Jew,” [Quote from Mishnah 11.] etc. What means “a nearby destination”? It should be as Samuel said, for example as from Ḥuṭra to Nahardea; here it is the same [“Nearby” must have a definite legal sense if it is used in the Mishnah. It is not known where Samuel stated his criterion; Pene Moshe points to the “lost” Yerushalmi (?) of Chapter 23:4 where the Mishnah uses the same term.] . Some want to say, until he reaches his home. But some want to say, until he reaches his town. Rebbi Aqiba says, that he leaves the place of the door when the day becomes holy around him [Tosephta 1:22.] . Rebbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rebbi Yose: But Rebbi Aqiba comes to determine following the words of the House of Hillel [All this is reproduced in the Babli 18b. Following R. Aqiba, the Gentile must have left the space of 4 cubits around the exit at sundown, “when the day becomes holy.” In R. Joḥanan’s interpretation, R. Aqiba determines the exact meaning of the position of the House of Hillel in the Mishnah.] . One does not give to a Gentile on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere. One does not give to a dog on condition that he leave. If he left, you do not have to interfere [These sentences appear as a baraita in the Babli, 19a.] .

81[An almost identical paragraph is in Avodah zarah 1:1 (Notes 53–55), referring to Jewish craftsmen working for Gentile employers on their holidays.] It was stated: Gentile workmen who were working for an Israel [On the Sabbath.] , in the Israel’s house it is forbidden, in their houses it is permitted. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, when has this been said? For contract work [The craftsman is paid for the completed work, irrespective of the time he needs to compete the job. He is an independent businessman working for himself, not for the Jew.] . But for one hired by the day it is forbidden. When has this been said, when it was cut from the ground, but as long as it is standing on the ground it is forbidden. In another town, in any case it is permitted. What means “in any case”? Whether cut from the ground or standing on the ground; whether a hireling or contract work. Rebbi Illa said, whether separated from the ground or connected to the ground, but only for contract work. Rebbi Simeon ben Barqana [In Avodah zarah: ben Carsana. In the quote by Tosaphot 18a (s.v. אין, 17b): ben Cahana.] in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Concerning Sabbath, mourning, and idolatry, practice follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar [The statement for the Sabbath is here, the one for Avodah zarah is quoted in Note 385. The quote about mourning is a parallel baraita in Semaḥot 5:8 detailing the rules under which a craftsman in mourning may work. The statement is accepted as practice in Halakhot Gedolot and most medieval halakhic authors.] .

82One sends letters through a Gentile neither on Friday nor on Thursday. The House of Shammai forbid even on Wednesday but the House of Hillel permit [The Babli 19a permits to send letters at any time by government mail or if the Gentile acts as contractor, that he is paid by the piece and not by the time he spends in delivering the mail; then he is a contractor and not an employee of the Jew. Sefer Hamanhig (Hilkhot Šabbat § 146) and Or Zarua (Hilkhot Šabbat §146) argue that the House of Hillel, of whom it is not specified what they permit, must permit to mail a letter even on Friday since if they simply negate the statement of the House of Shammai their position would be identical to that of the anonymous Tanna and should not have been mentioned separately. The same argument holds for the next paragraph.] . They said about Rebbi Jose [In the Genizah text and several Babli mss.: Joseph.] the Cohen that his handwriting never was found in the hand of a Gentile.

83One embarks on the ocean neither on Friday nor on Thursday. The House of Shammai forbid even on Wednesday but the House of Hillel permit [Babli 19a, Tosephta 13:13, Tanḥuma Šelaḥ 1 (both the Babli version). The reason given by North-African authors is that sea travel always is dangerous and there is a likelihood that the traveller will have to violate the Sabbath. Ashkenazic authors prefer to explain that people embarking shortly befor the Sabbath will be seasick on the Sabbath and unable to enjoy the day. The sentence about short trips which are permitted even on Friday supports the North-African authors. Sefer Ravan (§60) quotes a reading in the Yerushalmi in the name of his son-in-law R. Joel that the disagreement of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai is about Tuesday, not Wednesday. But in R. Joel’s text quoted by his son Ravia (§385) the text is as our Yerushalmi. In Pesaḥim 4:1 (30d l. 32) it is stated that R. Jehudah forbade all travel on the ocean. (He was a student of his father who in turn was a student of R. Eliezer who often followed the teachings of the House of Shammai.) S. Liebermann points out that while not much information can be drawn from the Genizah fragment of which at this point less than a third is legible in each line, it is clear that a sentence is missing in our Yerushalmi since there the permission to travel from Tyre to Sidon is quoted twice.] . If it is not dangerous, as from Tyre to Sidon, it is permitted.

84One does not lay siege to a Gentile city within three days before the Sabbath. That is in a war of choice [Neither the war of Joshua nor a purely defensive war.] . But in a war of obligation even on the Sabbath, for so we find that Jericho was conquered only on a Sabbath, as it is written, so you shall act for six days [Jos. 6:3.] , and it is written, on the Seventh Day you shall circle the city seven times [Jos. 6:4. The Seventh Day is interpreted as the Sabbath.] . And it is written, until it fell [Deut. 20:20. Babli 19a; Sifry Deut. #204,203; Tosephta Eruvin 3:7. In the last quote, two sources attribute the argument to Shammai and one to Hillel.] , even on the Sabbath.

85MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one does not give hides to the tannery worker nor clothing to the Non-Jewish washer unless the work may be done when it is still daylight. In all cases, the House of Hillel permit as long as the sun still shines [As long as the Gentile is an independent contractor, the Jew can hand work over to him even in the last seconds before sundown.] . Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, my father’s house used to give their white garments to a Non-Jewish washer three days before the Sabbath [While they promulgated the rules of the House of Hillel as generally valid, they privately followed the rules of the House of Shammai.] . They both agree that one may load the beam of the olive press and the round stone of the wine press [The House of Shammai agrees with the House of Hillel that one may fill oil- or wine-press on Friday afternoon, install the pressure mechanism, and let the fluid ooze out during the Sabbath. The reason is that the forbidden work on the Sabbath would be the crushing of olives or grapes, not the flowing out of oil or grape juice. But this crushing is done immediately when pressure is exerted, on Friday.] .

86HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One does not give hides to the tannery worker, [Quote from Mishnah 12.] ” etc. How long [Since practical rules are given, the question must have been asked for the House of Hillel, what practically means “as long as the sun shines”.] ? It should come like what Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Onias [He is R. Onias from Barat Hauran. It is not clear where else R. Joḥanan in the name of R. Onias gave a similar measure.] , the time needed to walk four miles [About 1 hour.] . And here, if he gave his clothing to the Gentile fuller and found him treating them on the Sabbath, it is forbidden [If the Gentile washed the garments on the Sabbath, the Jew may not wear them.] . Rebbi Yudan said, he should tell him not to do it. Rebbi Yudan, the father of Rebbi Mattaniah said, that is, for goodwill [If the Gentile is not paid, the Jew should tell him not to work for him on the Sabbath. But if he receives a set fee for each piece, he works for himself and is not bound by Jewish rules.] . But for a fee, he looks after his work.

87“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, in my father’s house they used, [Quote from Mishnah 13.] ” etc. They mentioned only white, therefore not colored. Following our routine we infer that white garments are more difficult to wash than colored ones [Washing colored clothes requires less care. Babli 19a.] .

88“They both agree [Quote from Mishnah 13.] ,” etc. Rebbi Samuel and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina both say, because every single drop was moved from its place [The essential work was done before the Sabbath started, cf. Note 355.] . Rebbi Aḥa said, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, may one touch the flow [While both the Houses of Hillel and Shammai permit starting the process of pressing olives or grapes on Friday evening close to sundown, the question for the House of Hillel is whether the fluid oozing out may be used on the Sabbath or may not be touched as a rabbinic precaution to prevent biblically prohibited use.] ? The rabbis of Caesarea said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina disagreed; Rebbi Joḥanan said it is forbidden; Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, it is permitted. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: They both agree that one may not touch the flow [In the Babli, 19a/b, the full baraita quoted shows that this is R. Aqiba’s tradition, opposed by R. Ismael and R. Eleazar.] .

89MISHNAH: One does not roast meat, onions, or an egg, unless they be roasted when it still is daylight [Cooking by human intervention on the Sabbath is forbidden. Since roasting is a short process which needs constant attention, it cannot be done on the Sabbath.] . One does not put bread dough into the oven when it gets dark nor pita on coals unless they form a crust. Rebbi Eliezer says, unless they form a crust at their bottoms [Once the crust has formed, bread quickly bakes by itself and does not need human help. Since the process of baking pita-bread is very short, there is no danger that the baker would stir the coals. Removing the pita from the walls of the oven where they are baked is classified as an art, not work.] .

90HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One does not roast meat, onions, or an egg, unless they be roasted when it still is daylight,” [Quote from Mishnah 14.] etc. Rebbi Bun bar Cahana in the name of the rabbis: A dish which is fully cooked one may leave on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes [A kirah is a portable clay cooking stove, usually with two burners, which is heated with charcoal. If the coals are covered with ashes, one may leave the pot on the fire on the Sabbath since the heat is diminished and the coals will stop to burn. Babli 37b.] . Rebbi Zeˋira asked: Meat, onion, and egg shrink and it is bad for them [It is a rule that all food may remain on the stove if continued cooking will detract from its quality; Babli 36b.] . This one is shrinking and it is good for it, and you say so? Maybe this was said only for hot water. Rebbi Samuel came, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: It is forbidden to leave hot water which was fully heated on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes. Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: A dish of beef which was cooked as Ben Derosai’s food [The technical term for very rare food. Technically cooked food is considered cooked before the Sabbath if it was rare by sundown. But this cannot apply to roasted food for people who do not eat their food very rare.] one may return on a cooking stove covered with ashes. This comes like what Rebbi Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One warns somebody who puts a pot on top of coals. When it will be cooked as Ben Derosai’s food it is forbidden. [And the perpetrator will have desecrated the Sabbath.] Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: Hot water which was fully heated one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes [As shown in the sequel, this tradition is impossible and has to be corrected by the last tradent.] . Rebbi Zeˋira asked: To leave on is forbidden but to return is permitted? Maybe it was only said for the Passover sacrifice. There Rebbi Aḥa in the name of the important Rebbi Simeon: The Passover sacrifice [If Passover falls on a Sabbath and one is required to roast the meat before the Sabbath and to keep it hot until it is eaten after the seder. Since it is fully roasted there is no cooking; the only problem is that one might be tempted to tend to the coals, which would be a desecration of the Sabbath. But since the Passover is celebrated in a group, one may assume that the members of the group would prevent anybody from stirring the coals.] which was fully roasted one may return on a cooking stove which is not covered with ashes.

91“One does not put bread dough into the oven. [Quote from Mishnah 14.] ” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi: Women are more careful with bread than with dishes. What is the difference between bread and dish? A dish one usually eats hot, bread one usually does not eat hot [Why must a dish be completely cooked before the Sabbath while bread only has to start forming a crust? Since bread is never eaten hot, there is no danger that one would be tempted to stir the coals because of it.] . There, they say, hot bread is accompanied by fever. A wasp, cold; a scorpion, hot. He who switches is in danger [This is a piece of Babylonian medicine. Eating hot bread is unhealthy, the sting of a wasp has to be treated by cooling it (Babli Avodah zarah 28b), the sting of a scorpion by heat.] .

92Rebbi Eliezer agrees that the shew-bread is not called bread until it develops a crust in the oven [Even though R. Eliezer holds here that bread is baked if it only developed a crust on one side, he agrees that the shew-bread is not acceptable unless it has a crust on all sides.] .

93MISHNAH: One hangs the Passover lamb into the oven when it gets dark [If the 15 of Nisan is a Sabbath, the Passover sacrifice has to be roasted in the night; overriding the rabbinic Sabbath prohibition. Naturally the roasting process has to begin when it is still Friday; the only leniency is that no minimal time has to elapse between the start of roasting and sundown. Although roasting was specifically prohibited in Mishnah 14 even if no further human intervention was necessary, in this case it is permitted since the Passover lamb is prepared and eaten by a group, not a single cook, and they can be expected to watch one another that no stirring of coals or adding of fuel will occur.] . One starts a fire at the fire place in the heating chamber [The fireplace in the Temple where the priests can warm themselves in cold nights. Again this fire burns in the presence and for the benefit of a group and no desecration of the Sabbath is expected. As a general rule, rabbinic restrictions relating to the Sabbath are not applied in the Temple.] , but outside the Temple only if the fire has started burning on most of the logs [Since it would be a Sabbath desecration to intervene to get a fire started (Ex. 35:3) one has to be sure that the fire in the fireplace does not need human intervention. This means that all logs must have started burning.] . Rebbi Jehudah says, on charcoal any amount [He holds that charcoal burns easily; even if only one log started to burn, all of them will burn in due course without human intervention.] .

94HALAKHAH: Mishnah: “One hangs the Passover lamb into the oven, [If the 15 of Nisan is a Sabbath, the Passover sacrifice has to be roasted in the night; overriding the rabbinic Sabbath prohibition. Naturally the roasting process has to begin when it is still Friday; the only leniency is that no minimal time has to elapse between the start of roasting and sundown. Although roasting was specifically prohibited in Mishnah 14 even if no further human intervention was necessary, in this case it is permitted since the Passover lamb is prepared and eaten by a group, not a single cook, and they can be expected to watch one another that no stirring of coals or adding of fuel will occur.] ” etc. There [Mishnah Pesaḥim 5:10. In contrast to the Mishnah here, this speaks of the case that the 14th of Nisan is a Sabbath; roasting the sacrifice may start only at nightfall, after the end of the Sabbath.] , we have stated: “At nightfall they went out and roasted their Passover sacrifices.” And you are saying so [From the Mishnah here it seems that roasting may be done on the Sabbath; the Mishnah there excludes it.] ? Rebbi Yose said, groups are careful [The reason for the Mishnah here is not because of a biblical prohibition which would be to stir the coals or to add fuel. To avoid the possibility of such violation of the Sabbath one forbids leaving on the fire anything not fully cooked. But for the Passover which is a group celebration, such a fear would be unfounded (Note 21). Maˋaser Šeni 3:2 Note 36; Babli 20a, Eruvin 106a, Pesaḥim 85a.] .

95The Passover sacrifice you return whole, you do not return it carved [Only the whole animal is a group affair; once individual portions are cut they must follow the rules of common food.] . Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Because of its invalidity [This is a new subject. While in general a dish cooked as Ben Derosai’s food can be returned and reheated, for the Passover this is forbidden; if the Passover sacrifice is roasted on Friday afternoon it must be well done overall.] . Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. You cannot eat it for it is written [Ex. 12:9.] , do not eat from it raw. You cannot roast it for he should not be roasting it on the Sabbath. If you are telling him that he may do it, he will not roast it completely when it still is daylight. Since you tell him that it is prohibited, he will roast it completely when it is still daylight [The previous permission (Note 413) to return the Passover sacrifice is given only for the uncut body; once a piece has been cut to check whether it was well done it cannot be returned. This forces one to finish the roasting process before cutting anything.] . Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose [The Tanna, son of R. Yose ben Ḥalafta. His question was answered in the negative by the late Amoraim just quoted.] asked, if he roasted it whole and carved it up, may he go back and heat it?

96Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Four pyres are in a minimal amount. A pyre of pressed-out olives, a pyre of manure, a pyre of fat, a pyre of pits are in a minimal amount [These materials can be lit on Friday evening any moment before sundown since if the fire starts anywhere it will quickly spread to all of the fuel] .

97Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: A willow basket full of pits is in a minimal amount. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi: A willow basket full of pits, if they are collection, by their majority; if they are distributed, by the majority of each heap. Do they disagree? Here fat ones, there lean ones [The two statements of R. Abba seem to contradict one another. Only kernels containing oil do not need a minimum of burning substance before nightfall.] .

98Rebbi Yose in the name of Rav Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥananiah bent it in the name of Rav: Cuttings from date palms below and wood on top, when the fire appears between them it is permitted [While the Mishnah requires that the fire spread to most of the fuel, if there are two distinct kinds of fuel only one of them has to be aflame in its majority.] .

99Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rav Huna: A log and most of it by the majority of its circumference. What means by the majority of its circumference? At one place or at most of its entire surface area? It was found stated: Until it became unfit for work [This means that the Mishnah requires that most of the logs burn before sundown.] .

100So is the Mishnah: Also on charcoals any amount [The plural “charcoals” requires a plural in “any amount”.] .