yose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work, principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places, a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. Also here: Do not worship them, a principle. Do not prostrate yourself, a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not] infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun does not say so but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, should not the Two Breads, being mentioned separately, teach about all sancta on the ramp? He said to him, them is a restriction. For these one is liable on the ramp, for all other sancta one is not liable on the ramp. This implies that a single item which is mentioned separately necessarily does not divide, but unnecessarily it divides. Two items which are mentioned separately do not divide but according to Rebbi Ismael they do divide, as Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the words of Rebbi Ismael are that two items which are mentioned separately divide. As Rebbi Ismael stated, you shall neither divine nor cast spells. Were not divining and spellbinding included in the general class? The were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case.

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his maternal brother’s wife. It is said here his aunt, and it is said there, either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall free him. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal sister. Also his brother’s wife can be inferred from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there, a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah. Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his paternal brother’s wife may be permitted after being forbidden. This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden.

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal, a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune, detail. Sowing and pruning were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since sowing and pruning are particular in that they perform work on the soil or on a tree, I have only what is work on the soil or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, are they not for making inferences? There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. Rebbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions. Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard, not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this [statement] by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 23? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis [problematic for you]? If one harvested for grasses he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish, if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

“And who harvests.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “One who cuts grain, harvests grapes, harvests olives, cuts tree branches, tears out, plucks fruits, are all because of harvesting.” One who cuts sponge, papyrus, or corals is liable for harvesting and planting. One who cuts coriander, leeks, celery, rocket, endives, sesame, mint, is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who puts a flowerpot with a hole on a flowerpot with a hole is liable for harvesting and sowing. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, one who cuts down the stem of a sycamore is liable three for it. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. One who cuts it is liable for harvesting and for sowing. One who planes it is liable for hitting with a hammer. The rabbis of Caesarea say, one who catches a fish or anything by which he separates it from the environment it needs to live is liable because of harvesting.

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

Rebbi Jonah asked, if he did this on the Sabbath, in the opinion of the House of Shammai would he be liable? Rebbi Yose said to him, why not? If he did it on the Sabbath would he not be liable according to the House of Hillel? And here he is liable. Rebbi Mana said, my father Rebbi Jonah said it correctly. It is a problem only for the House of Shammai. Why? Because the category of selecting was permitted on the holiday, nothing of the category of selecting was permitted on the Sabbath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He who burns potter’s clay, softens glass, melts pitch, melts מוסרין. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: One who melts down lead is liable because of cooking. One who roasts, or who fries, who preserves by cooking, or by smoking, all these because of cooking. If somebody cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, what? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Ḥizqiah; for Ḥizqiah it was a problem: what if the Passover sacrifice was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias? Two Amoraim, one said, it is forbidden; the other said, it is permitted. He who said, it is forbidden, do not eat from it raw, nor cooked in water. But he who said, it is permitted, but only roasted in fire, its head with its feet and its innards.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing. But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

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

“He who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties.” What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes. But was this not temporarily? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word, was it like temporarily? Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi Abun] said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were (temporary) [permanent]. Rebbi Phineas said, they learned it from the gobelin sewers. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. If it broke again, it was impossible to make many knots but he would untie the first one. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads. And where was this said? As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the gobelins. What is the reason? The length of one gobelin, that it should be an entity. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of (Rav) [Rebbi] Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection.

“He who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties.” What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes. But was this not temporarily? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word, was it like temporarily? Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi Abun] said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were (temporary) [permanent]. Rebbi Phineas said, they learned it from the gobelin sewers. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. If it broke again, it was impossible to make many knots but he would untie the first one. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads. And where was this said? As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the gobelins. What is the reason? The length of one gobelin, that it should be an entity. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of (Rav) [Rebbi] Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection.

“He who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties.” What tying was in the Tabernacle? They were tying down the ropes. But was this not temporarily? Rebbi Yose says, because they were camping and travelling by the Word, was it like temporarily? Rebbi Yose [ben Rebbi Abun] said, since the Holy One, praise to Him, has promised them that he will bring them into the Land, it is as if it were (temporary) [permanent]. Rebbi Phineas said, they learned it from the gobelin sewers. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. If it broke again, it was impossible to make many knots but he would untie the first one. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, an expert tailor merges the two heads. And where was this said? As Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, they learned it from the weavers of the gobelins. What is the reason? The length of one gobelin, that it should be an entity. If [a thread] broke, he was tying it. When he came to the weave, he untied it and brought it in. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of (Rav) [Rebbi] Ḥuna: Even on its warp there was neither knot nor connection.

Rebbi Ḥanina said, not until it comes down an entire side. Rebbi Yannai said, say to Rebbi Ḥanina, get out and read! Did we not state, “if the two ends appear on the same side”? That means, only if it goes up and down and up. And did we not state, “Rebbi Jehudah says, only if there are three needle stitches”? That means that [the thread] goes down, and up, and down. But so and so. A thread drawn through by means of a needle, even if it has a knot on each side, is no connection for cloth. The thread is a connection for cloth but not for the needle. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose both say, only if it is knotted on both sides. The words of the rabbis disagree since Rebbi Abba, Rav Jeremiah said in the name of Rav: He who straightens out the sides on the Sabbath is liable because of sewing. He should have said, because of sewing and tying knots.

3. One who catches a purple snail and crushes it. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable twice. There are Tannaïm who state that he is liable only once. He who says twice, one because of catching and one because of depriving of life. But he who says once, this is because of depriving of life. Does he not have catching? It comes like what Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Meïr said: The Holy One, praise to Him, created for Moses in the desert a kind of pure animal. After the work of the Tabernacle had been finished it was hidden. Rebbi Abun said, its name was qereš. Rebbi Hoshaia stated, a unicorn. It is preferable to the Eternal to a cattle ox which sprouts a horn and has split hooves. It is written, it sprouts a horn.

“Who rubs it clean.” What kind of erasure was in the tabernacle? Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They were rubbing the hide on a pillar. One who rubbed hide clear on a pillar is liable. For what is he liable? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, because of rubbing clean. That is, if it is new. But if it be old, it is the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Since they disagreed: “One who sweeps, who sprinkles, who makes cheese, who makes butter, who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable for a purification sacrifice. But the Sages say, it is because of Sabbath rest.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who sweeps, who sprinkles, is liable because of threshing. He who makes cheese, who makes butter, is liable because of kneading. He who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable because of harvesting. He who squeezes budding olives is liable because of harvesting. Who needs this? Rebbi Eliezer.

“Who rubs it clean.” What kind of erasure was in the tabernacle? Zeˋir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: They were rubbing the hide on a pillar. One who rubbed hide clear on a pillar is liable. For what is he liable? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Levi, because of rubbing clean. That is, if it is new. But if it be old, it is the disagreement between Rebbi Eliezer and the Sages. Since they disagreed: “One who sweeps, who sprinkles, who makes cheese, who makes butter, who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable for a purification sacrifice. But the Sages say, it is because of Sabbath rest.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who sweeps, who sprinkles, is liable because of threshing. He who makes cheese, who makes butter, is liable because of kneading. He who milks, and who takes down honeycombs, is liable because of harvesting. He who squeezes budding olives is liable because of harvesting. Who needs this? Rebbi Eliezer.

“If one erased a big letter where there is space to write in its stead two letters, he is liable. If he wrote one large letter even though there is space to write in its stead two letters, he is not liable. Rebbi Menaḥem ben Rabbi Yose says, this is more serious about him who erases than about him who writes that he who erases in order to correct is liable but he who writes in order to spoil is not liable.” It may happen that one writes a single dot and is liable for it because of writing and because of erasing; it may happen that one erases a single dot and is liable for it because of writing and because of erasing. How is this? If it was a ד and he makes it ר ,ר and he makes it ד; he is liable because of writing and because of erasing.

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

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

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

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

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