משנה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים שְׂאוֹר כְּזַּיִת וְחָמֵץ כַּכּוֹתְבָת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים זֶה וָזֶה בְּכַזַּיִת: MISHNAH: The House of Shammay say that sour dough {causes liability} by the size of an olive and leavened matter by the size of a date3This refers to the prohibition of leavened matter on Passover. While the smallest amount of leavened matter is forbidden, only the possession of a minimal amount triggers the liability for a purification sacrifice if found to be unintentional. The House of Shammai hold that this amount is smaller for actively leavening material than for passive leavened material, whereas the House of Hillel do not differentiate between the two. It will be stated in Halakhah 2 that the disagreement only refers to possession; in matters of eating there is no disagreement. The reason this disagreement is mentioned here is that in the first case the House of Shammai is more lenient than the House of Hillel; the same is true in the second case., but the House of Hillel say that both are by the size of an olive.
הלכה: רִבִּי זְרִיקָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְבִיעוּרוֹ. הָא לַאֲכִילָה כַזַּיִת. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בֵּין לְבִיעוּרוֹ בֵּין לַאֲכִילָה כַזַּיִת. קָם רִבִּי מָנָא עִם רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מָן הֵן שְׁמַע רַב הָדָא מִילְּתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מִן רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. [וְאוּף] (וַ)אֲנָן אָֽמְרִין. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בֵּין לְבִיעוּרוֹ בֵּין לַאֲכִילָה כַזַּיִת. דִּי לֹא כֵן. נִיתְנֵי שְׁלֹשִׁים וְשֶׁבַע כְּרִיתוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. HALAKHAH: [Halakhah 2]67Corrector’s addition, to be deleted. He designated the discussion of the second part of Mishnah 1 as separate Halakhah. Therefore his count of Halakhot in this Chapter deviates systematically from the scribe’s.. Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They stated this only for its elimination, but for eating the volume of an olive68Even the House of Shammai agree that eating leavened matter in the volume of an olive on Passover creates liability.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive69This statement refers only to the opinion of the House of Hillel. While leavened matter is forbidden on Passover in the most minute amount, liability is created only by the volume of an olive, whether active leavening or passive leavened matter.. Rebbi Mana was standing with Rebbi Ḥizqiah; he said to him, from where did the rabbi hear this?. He told him, from Rebbi Abbahu. He answered, we also are saying, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, whether for elimination or eating, the volume of an olive15If fruit is found under a fruit tree on the holiday, there is a doubt whether it is forbidden as fallen on the holiday or whether it is permitted as fallen before the holiday. Therefore if this fruit is put into a basket with many other fruits, there is a doubt whether any of this is forbidden. If we hold that the requirement to use only food available before the holiday is biblical (cf. Ex. 16:23) the wind-fall is forbidden, but if the requirement is rabbinic and traditional, the wind-fall is permitted cf. Babli 24a. There is nothing clearly forbidden and the rule spelled out at the end of the preceding note cannot be applied. But if an egg was laid on the holiday, for the House of Hillel it certainly is forbidden and therefore the rule which forbids the mixture for the day can be applied., for otherwise one would have to state “37 extirpations in the Torah”70If there were different standards for leavening and leavened matter, Mishnah Keritut 1:1 which enumerates the 36 transgressions causing extirpation should have enumerated them separately and arrived at a total of 37..
משנה: הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַיָּה וָעוֹף בְּיוֹם טוֹב בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים יַחְפּוֹר בַּדֶּקֶר וִיכַסֶּה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים לֹא יִשְׁחוֹט אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיָה לוֹ עָפָר מוּכָן. וּמוֹדִין שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹר בַּדֶּקֶר וִיכַסֶּה. שֶׁאֵפֶר כִּירָה מוּכָן. MISHNAH: If somebody slaughtered a wild animal or a bird71Whose blood has to be covered by dust, Lev. 17:13. on the holiday, the House of Shammai say that he shall dig with a picket72Even though digging is an activity forbidden on the holiday, since slaughter for food is permitted without restriction there is biblical authorization to provide the `necessary dust. The House of Hillel agree that by biblical standards this is true; they say that rabbinically one has to refrain from digging if possible. and cover, but the House of Hillel say that he should not slaughter unless he had dust prepared. But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, <and> that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared73The ashes produced from the firewood in the stove are qualified as dust to cover the blood of birds. Therefore they are useful for activities permitted on the holiday and cannot be muqṣeh. In this context, “prepared” means “available for the preparation of food on the holiday.”.
הלכה: רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַמְבַשֵּׁל נְבֵילָה בְיוֹם טוֹב אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁהוּתָּר מִכְּלָל בִּישּׁוּל בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֵּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לוֹקֶה. שֶׁלֹּא הוּתָּר מִכְּלָל בִּישּׁוּל אֶלָּא לַאֲכִילָה בִּלְבַד. הָתִיב רִבִּי בָּא בַּר מָמָל עַל הָדָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מֵעַתָּה הַחוֹרֵשׁ בְּיוֹם טוֹב אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. שֶׁהוּתָּר מִכְּלָל חֲרִישָׁה בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. לֹא הוּתְרָה חֲרִישָׁה כְדַרְכָּהּ. רִבִּי שַׁמַּי אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִילָא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר. עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹ צוֹרֶךְ בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁלְּדָבָר. קָם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי עִם רִבִּי אָחָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּה הָדָא מִילְּתָא. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים מְקוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּמְחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלָּל. וְזֶה אֶחָד מֵהֶן. נֹאמַר עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. אֶלָּא רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁנֵיהֶן אָֽמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. לֹא כֵן סָֽבְרִנָן מֵימַר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁנֵיהֶן אָֽמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. נֵימַר. רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵה וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁלָשְׁתָּם אָֽמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד. אֶלָּא מִילִּין דִּצְרִיכָן לְרַבָּנִן פְּשִׁיטָן לְכוֹן. פְּשִׁיטָן לְרַבָּנִן צְרִיכָן לָכוֹן. קָצַר לְצוֹרֶךְ עֲשָׂבִים חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם קוֹצֵר וְאֵינוֹ חַיָיב מִשֵּׁם שֶׁהוּא מְייַפֶּה אֶת הַקַּרְקַע. לָא צוֹרְכָה דְּילָא. קָצַר לְייַפּוֹת אֶת הַקַּרְקַע מָהוּ שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָיב מִשֵּׁם קוֹצֵר וּמִשֵּׁם שֵׁהוּא מְייַפֶּה אֶת הַקַּרְקַע. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִן מִכָּל־מָקוֹם הֲרֵי חָרַשׁ וּמִכָּל־מָקוֹם הֲרֵי קָצַר. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן מְסַייְעָן לְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי רִבִּי. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דָּג שֶׁסְּחָטוֹ. אִם לְגוּפוֹ פָטוּר. אִם לְהוֹצִיא צִיר הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָיב. וַאֲפִילוּ תֵימַר דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. בְּרַם כְּרַבָּנִן מִכָּל־מָקוֹם הֲרֵי סָחַט וּמִכָּל־מָקוֹם הֲרֵי הוֹצִיא צִיר. HALAKHAH: 74This paragraph is from Šabbat 7, Notes 239–254. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who cooks carcass meat on a holiday is not flogged, because the category of cooking is permitted on a holiday75It is presumed that carcass meat, which is forbidden as human food, is not prepared as animal feed. For R. Joḥanan (Babli 12b) since making fire and cooking is permitted for preparing food on the holiday (Ex. 12:16) it is permitted for any purpose.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is flogged, for the category of cooking is permitted only for food76He disputes that cooking be permitted for anything that is not food.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to this {statement} by Rebbi Joḥanan. Then one who ploughs on a holiday should not be flogged since actions of the category of ploughing are permitted on a holiday77This refers to Mishnah 1:2. Now digging is a derivative of ploughing, therefore some kind of ploughing is biblically permitted on a holiday.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted78Since no plough is authorized, the work is not professional and, since the intent is not to prepare the soil for agriculture, the prohibition is rabbinical; the Houses of Shammai and Hillel do not disagree about the interpretation of a biblical commandment.. Rebbi Shammai said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ila, this79Both the Houses of Shammai and of Hillel do permit to use a professional tool; they must hold that the intent determines liability. is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter80There is liability only if the prohibited action is the object of his intent, not a by-product. Cf. Šabbat 2, Note 19.. Rebbi Yose met Rebbi Aḥa. He said to him, did you say this? But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say, the words of Rebbi Meïr are that in 24 matters the House of Shammai are lenient and the House of Hillel restrictive, and this is one of them. Should we say 2381Since in this interpretation both Houses agree that the digging does not create liability and the biblical commandment to cover the blood overrides the rabbinic “fence around the law”.? But Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon both said the same82Mishnah 1:2 is anonymous and therefore presumed to be R. Meïr’s. If it implies the position of R. Simeon then both must agree in this matter. The opponent of R. Simeon in this matter is Rebbi Jehudah, student of his father R. Ilai, who was a student of the Shammaite R. Eliezer. It is intrinsically unlikely that the House of Shammai should accept what later was formulated by R. Simeon.. But were we not of the opinion that Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Simeon both said the same83Šabbat 2, Note 19. Babli Šabbat 31b.? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same84Then we should hold that this is their (direct or indirect) teacher R. Aqiba’s position and it is difficult to fathom who would disagree; but we see that this opinion is not generally accepted in tannaitic sources.? But matters which are problematic for the rabbis are obvious for you; are those which are obvious for the rabbis problematic for you? If one harvested for grasses85He was weeding and using the uprooted weeds as fodder. This is forbidden on a holiday as it is forbidden on the Sabbath. he is liable for harvesting but is not liable for improving the soil. There is only the problem if he harvested in order to improve the soil. Is he liable for harvesting and for improving the soil? Even if you say it follows Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he ploughed, in any case he harvested86In the Babli, these rabbis are identified with R. Jehudah.. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support my teacher Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish87A pickled herring. Since the preparation of food is permitted on a holiday, this sentence and the next are copied in error from Šabbat, since the activities are only forbidden on Šabbat. Babli Šabbat 145a., if for its body he is not liable, but if to produce fish sauce he is liable. Even if you say that he said this following Rebbi Simeon, but for the rabbis in any case he compressed, in any case he produced fish sauce88This is all one Šabbat liability..
רַב אָבוּן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִן דְּתַמָּן. זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁאֵין אֶפֶר הַכִּירָה מוּכָן אֶלָּא [לְ]מִצְוָה. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. בְּשֶׁלֹּא הֵכִינוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הֵכִינוֹ מְכַסִּין בּוֹ (צוֹאָה) וּמִצְוָה. וְאַתְיָיא כַּהִיא דְּאָמַר רִבִּי שַׁמַּי. דָּרַשׁ רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רַב יְהוּדָה. הֵכִינוֹ לְמִצְוָה מְכַסִּין בּוֹ מִצְוָה. צוֹאָה. מְכַסִּין בָּהּ צוֹאָה מִצְוָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רַב זֵירָא וְרִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יוֹסֵף. חַד אָמַר. יֵשׁ הָכֵן לָצוֹאָה. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. אֵין הָכֵן לְצוֹאָה. מָתִיב מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין הָכֵן. לְמָאן דְּאָמַר. יֵשׁ הָכֵן. וִיכַסֶּה בוֹ אֶת הַכּוֹי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. כּוֹי דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִטְעוֹת בּוֹ. צוֹאָה אֵין דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לִטְעוֹת בָּהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ כֵּן. אַף הוּא חוֹפֵר בַּדֶּקֶר וּמְכַסֶּה. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. הֵבִיא עָפָר לַטּוּחַ אֶת גַּגּוֹ. סִיד לַסּוּד אֶת בֵּיתוֹ. מְכַסִּין בּוֹ. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֵין מְכַסִּין. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מְכַסִּין. לְשֵׁעָבַר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין מְכַסִּין. בְּבָא לִישְׁאָל כַּתְּחִילָּה. Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: this89If the Mishnah was to be understood that ashes from the cooking stove may be used without restriction on the holiday, it should have indicated that it may be used for some mundane action. Since the remark about the ashes is appended to the discussion of a religious act, one infers that it may be used for religious acts only. implies that the ashes of the stove are prepared only for the commandment90The ל prefixed by the corrector to the word מצוה is standard Babli syntax; as the following text shows clearly it has to be deleted.. Rebbi Mana said, if he did not prepare it91Ashes which existed before the holiday may be designated before the holiday for any use intended on the holiday.. But if he prepared it, one covers with it (excrement)92Scribe’s text deleted by the corrector who did not understand the text. As noted already by Qorban ha`Edah, this has to be undeleted. and commandment. This parallels what Rebbi Shammai said, Rebbi Aḥa preached in the name of Rav Jehudah: If he prepared it for the commandment one covers with it for the commandment, for excrement one covers with it excrement and commandment. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rav Zera and Rebbi Abba bar Joseph disagreed. One said, there is preparation for excrement, but the other said, there is no preparation for excrement. The one who said that there is no preparation objected to the one who said that there is preparation, could he not use it to cover {the blood of} the Koy93The blood of kosher wild animals has to be covered and all their fat may be consumed. The blood of domesticated kosher animals is not covered and their visceral fat is forbidden as food. Mishnah Bikkurim2:8–9 states that the Koy is possibly a wild animal or possibly a domesticated animal; therefore his blood has to be covered but its fat may not be eaten. It may not be slaughtered on the holiday; if slaughtered anyhow its blood may not be covered on the holiday.
In Bikkurim2:7 (Note 154) R. Eleazar says the Koy is the result of the mating of a he-goat with a hind or a stag mating with a she-goat; but the rabbis say, it is a separate kind and the Sages could not determine its classification.
In the Babli 8b this is a declarative sentence, not an interrogation.? He answered him, people are apt to err about the Koy94And infer that its fat is permitted since its blood is covered., people are not apt to err about excrement. He said to him, if you would say so, he would take the picket and cover95A possible (not prosecutable) holiday violation. Babli 8a.. And it was stated so96Tosephta 1:5.: “If one brought dust to plaster his roof, lime to whitewash his house, one uses it to cover.” There are Tannaim who state, one does not use it to cover. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda, he who said, one uses it to cover, after the deed; he who said, one does not use it to cover, one who comes to ask before he starts97The restrictions on using building materials to cover blood or excrement are rabbinic in nature..
תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. כּוֹי אֵין מְכַסִּין אֶת דָּמוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא סָפֵק. מָה אִם מִילָה שֶׁוַודָּיָיהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. אֵין סְפֵיקָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת יוֹם טוֹב. כִּיסּוּי הַדָּם שֶׁאֵין וַודָּייוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. דִּין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִדְחֶה סְפֵיקוֹ אֶת יוֹם טוֹב. וּמוּתָּר לִשְׁחוֹט בַּשַּׁבָּת. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה אָמַר לָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּשׁוֹחֵט לַחוֹלֶה. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. וַהֲרֵי שׁוֹפָר שֶׁבִּגְבוּלִים יוֹכִיחַ. שֶׁאֵין וַודָּייוֹ דּוֹחֶה שַׁבָּת וַהֲרֵי סְפֵיקוֹ דּוֹחֶה יוֹם טוֹב. מַה סָפֵק יֵשׁ שָׁם. יוֹם חוֹל הוּא יִתִקַע יוֹם טוֹב הוּא יִתִקַע. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. בְּאַנְדְּרוֹגִינֹס שֶׁתָּקַע. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. אַנְדְּרוֹגִינֹס מוֹצִיא אֶת מִינוֹ [וְאֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ]. טוּמְטוּם אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא לֹא אֶת מִינוֹ וְלאֹ אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בָעֵי. אִם בְּאַנְדְּרוֹגִינֹס שֶׁתָּקַע. בְּדָא דְתַנֵּי. אֵין לוֹ תְשׁוּבָה. אָמַר רִבִּי (אַבָּיֵי) [אַבִּין]. זֶה אֶחָד מֵאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיָה רִבִּי חִיָיה הַגָּדוֹל אוֹמֵר. אֵין לָהֶן תְּשׁוּבָה. וְהֵשִׁיב רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּנוֹ שֶׁלְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר הַקַּפָּר. מָה אִם מִילָה שֶׁאֵין סְפֵיקָהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת יוֹם טוֹב וַודָּיָיהּ דּוֹחָה אֶת לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב. תֹּאמַר בְּכִיסּוּי הַדָּם שֶׁוַודָּייוֹ דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב. הוֹאִיל וַודָּייוֹ דּוֹחָה אֶת לֵילֵי יוֹם טוֹב דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּדְחֶה סְפֵיקוֹ אֶת יוֹם טוֹב. וְקָמַת כְּמָה דִצְרָכַת לְרַבָּנִן קַדְמָאֵיי וְקָשַׁת בִּידֵיהוֹן. כֵּן צְרָכַת לְרַבָּנִן (אַחָרַיי) [אַחֲרָא] וְקָשַׁת בִּידֵיהוֹן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי אָחָא. אַנְדְּרוֹגִינֹס מוֹצִיא אֶת מִינוֹ כַּתְחִילָּה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה. לִשְׁעָבַר. It was stated98Tosephta 1:5, Ḥulin6:1; Babli 8a, Ḥulin 84b.: “Rebbi Yose says, one does not cover the Koy’s blood because it is a doubtful case.” Since circumcision whose certainty pushes aside the Sabbath, in doubt does not push aside the holiday99If a baby is born on a Sabbath it is circumcised the next Sabbath. If he is born during twilight, when it was not clear on which calendar date the birth actually was, then it cannot be circumcised before the eighth day counting from the second possible date. If that should be a holiday, the circumcision has to be delayed for another day since violating the holiday for what may be a ninth, not an eighth, day would be desecrating the holiday. Mishnah Šabbat 19:5., then for covering the blood which in case of certainty does not push aside the Sabbath it only is logical that in a case of doubt it not push aside the holiday100Since according to Mishnah Megillah 1:8 the only activity forbidden on the Sabbath and permitted on a holiday is the preparation of food. Covering the blood is an activity occurring after what is a preparation of food, and only preparations are permitted.. But is it permitted to slaughter on a Sabbath101Since slaughter is forbidden on the Sabbath, covering the blood cannot occur and the premise of the argument is vacuous.? Rebbi Yose said it without attribution, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he slaughtered for a sick person102If freshly cooked meat is prescribed by a competent medical authority to a dangerously sick person, it has to be provided on the Sabbath. The obligation to violate the Sabbath extends to slaughter but not to covering the blood.. They told him, does not the shofar in the countryside disprove it? For in case of certainty it does not push aside the Sabbath, but in a case of doubt it pushes aside the holiday103Since outside the Temple the shofar is not blown on a Sabbath (Mishnah Roš Haššanah 4:1), but on the holiday falling on a weekday it is blown everywhere even when it is not known whether the 1st of Tishre is the 30th or the 31st of Elul.. What kind of doubt is there? If it is a weekday, he may blow, if it is a holiday, he may blow104Since on New Year’s Day the blowing is a biblical obligation, it certainly is permitted on that day. On a workday one may blow anyhow.. Rebbi Ḥanina105With the Genizah sources, read “Ḥananiah” the late Amora, for Ḥanina, the early one. in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: In case of a hermaphrodite106Greek ̓ανδρόγυνος “man-woman”, a person having both male and female sex organs. He is considered a probable male and therefore probably required to hear the shofar sound; therefore he may perform the blowing for similar probable males. who blew. And it was stated so107Roš Haššanah Tosephta 2:5, Babli 29a.: “The hermaphrodite frees his own kind [but does not free persons not of his own kind.]108Corrector’s addition, is found in the Tosephta text but not in the Genizah sources; to be deleted. The sexless frees neither his kind nor not his kind109The person with neither male nor female sex characteristics may be a male or a female. As a female he would not be obliged by a religious obligation to be performed at a set time; therefore his blowing cannot free even another sexless person since the blower might be a genetic female and the hearer a genetic male..” Rebbi Yose110The late Amora. asked, if in the case of a hermaphrodite who blew, is that where we stated, it has no counter argument? Rebbi (Abbaye) [Abbin]111The corrector’s “Abbin” is a distortion of the text. The scribe’s “Abbaye” is confirmed by a Genizah source. While in old and modern lists of Amoraim no Galilean “R. Abbaye” is listed, he appears as an early Amora in Roš Haššanah 1:10, Note 321, not to be confused with the Babylonian Abbaye who never has a title. said, that is one of four cases when the Great Rebbi Ḥiyya said, there is no counter-argument. But Rebbi Eleazar the son of Rebbi Eleazar the caper grower112He is the person usually known as Ben Qappara. found a counter-argument. Since circumcision which in a case of doubt does not push aside the holiday, in a case of certainty pushes aside holiday night113This argument does not make any sense. Since the text is confirmed by the Genizah sources, the loss of a “not” must have happened at a very early stage of transmission. One must read: “in a case of certainty it does not push aside holiday night”, since circumcision is prescribed for the day (Lev.12:3)., you can say about covering the blood where in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, since in case of certainly it pushes aside holiday night, in a case of doubt it should push aside the holiday114This is not a proof but a possibility, and does not exclude an opposite opinion.. This establishes that what was problematic to the earlier rabbis and was difficult for them, so it is problematic to the later rabbis and is a difficulty for them. In the opinion of Rebbi Aḥa, the hermaphrodite frees his own kind a priori, in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, a posteriori115Since R. Aḥa asserts that the hermaphrodite has the right to blow, he must hold that if such a person comes to ask whether he may blow for others, the answer must be positive. But since R. Yose the Amora questions whether the argument about the hermaphrodite can be used against R. Yose the Tanna, he must hold that the Tosephta does not forbid him to blow but does not authorized it a priori..
וּמוֹדִים שֶׁאִם שָׁחַט שֶׁיַּחְפּוֹר בַּדֶּקֶר וִיכַסֶּה. שֶׁאֵפֶר הַכִּירָה מוּכָן. הָדָא דְאַתָּ אָמַר. בְּאֵפֶר שֶׁהוּסַּק מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב. אֲבָל בְּאֵפֶר שֶׁהוּסַּק בְּיוֹם טוֹב לֹא בְדָא. בְּשֶׁלֹּא שָׁחַט. אֶבָל אִם שָׁחַט מוּטָּב שֶׁיִּטּוֹל מֵאֵפֶר שֶׁהוּסַּק בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וְאַל יַחְפּוֹר בַּדֶּקֶר וִיכַסֶּה. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָֽמְרִין. שֶׁמִּצְוַת עֲשֵׂה דוֹחָה לְמִצְוָה בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹנָה דוּ אָמַר. מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה דוֹחָה לְמִצְוָה בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאִינָהּ כְּתוּבָה בְצִידָּהּ נִיחָא. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי דוּ אָמַר. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה דוֹחָה בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָֽיְתָה כְתוּבָה בְצִידָּהּ. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהִתְחִיל בַּמִּצְוָה אוֹמְרִים לוֹ. מָרֵק. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בָעֵי. קְעָרָה שֶׁחָקְקָה קוֹף מָהוּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן רִבִּי זְעוּרָה וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא. חַד אָמַר. אָסוּר. וְחוֹרָנָה אָמַר. מוּתָּר. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אָסוּר. נַעֲשֶׂה כְמוּקְצֶה שֶׁיָּבַשׁ וְלֹא יָדַע בּוֹ. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מוּתָּר. נַעֲשֶׂה כְטֵבֵל שֶׁתִּיקְּנוֹ שׁוֹגֵג. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מוּתָּר. מָהוּ לִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ עַל גַּב מְקוֹמָהּ. כָּךְ אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים. אָסוּר לִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע. “But they agree that if he slaughtered that he may dig with a picket and cover, and that the ashes of the cooking stove are prepared73The ashes produced from the firewood in the stove are qualified as dust to cover the blood of birds. Therefore they are useful for activities permitted on the holiday and cannot be muqṣeh. In this context, “prepared” means “available for the preparation of food on the holiday.”.” That which you are saying is about ashes which were burned before the holiday, but it does not apply to ashes which were burned on the holiday116Since the wood has been turned into ashes on the holiday, this is non-food material in a state different from what it was at the start of the holiday and therefore is muqṣeh., if he did not slaughter, but if he slaughtered it is better that he cover with ashes which were burned on the holiday rather than dig with a picket and cover117Since muqṣeh is a rabbinic prohibition but digging a biblical violation, it is better to disregard the rabbinic prohibition even though there is biblical permission to disregard the biblical prohibition. (For muqṣeh as rabbinic institution cf. Introduction to Tractates Šabbat and `Eruvin, p. 3, Note 4.). The colleagues are saying that a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition118And therefore one may dig to obtain dust to cover the blood.. This is understandable following the opinion of Rebbi Jonah who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition even if they are not written side by side119The dispute between RR. Jonah and Yose is also in Ḥallah2:1, Note 10. It is not mentioned in the Babli (which nevertheless holds that the principle does not apply to holidays since the rules of holidays are both positive commandments and prohibitions.). Following the opinion of Rebbi Yose who said, a positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition only if they were written side-by-side, since he started the meritorious deed one tells him to clean it up120He must agree that if slaughter is biblically permitted on a holiday, with the consumption of meat a positive commandment, there can be no biblical prohibition to deal with all consequences of the slaughter.. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, if a monkey formed a bowl, what121The monkey formed a bowl out of clay on the holiday. If a human made the bowl it clearly would have been muqṣeh, and also forbidden as the result of biblically forbidden work. But the monkey is not a human.? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Ze`ira122In one of the Genizah sources this is a purely Babylonian dispute involving a Rav Ze`ura. and Rav Hamnuna disagreed. One said, it is forbidden, but the other said, it is permitted. For him who said that it is forbidden it is like cut-up fig cake which dried out without his knowledge5While muqṣeh is the technical term for anything which is not available to be moved on the holiday or Sabbath, the original meaning is “cut-up”, viz., a heap of cut-up figs lying on the flat roof to ferment and to be made into fig cakes. During the fermentation process the mass is inedible; therefore it has become the paradigm of anything not currently available for use. Here the original meaning is intended. If the owner had inspected his roof on the eve of the holiday he would have realized that the figs were ready food for the holiday and therefore falling under the category of “prepared food” permitted on Sabbath and holiday. But since at sundown of the holiday he had no knowledge of the situation, the figs were not available to him at the start of the holiday and therefore remain forbidden for the rest of the holiday. Similarly, since the owner of the chicken does not know that the egg (which is completely formed with its hard shell) will be laid on the holiday, since it was not available at the start it cannot become available later.. For him who said that it is permitted it is as if he put it in order erroneously123“Putting in order” means separating heave and tithes, to make the harvest totally profane and generally usable. This is a mental act not dependent of material action, rabbinically prohibited on a holiday but valid.. For him who said that it is permitted, may one use its place124The hole created by the monkey could be considered as not-existent before the holiday. But the prohibition of newly created things cannot apply to soil.? Would we say that soil may not be used?
משנה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין מוֹלִיכִין אֶת הַסּוּלָּם מִשּׁוֹבָךְ לְשׁוֹבָךְ אֲבָל מַטֵּהוּ מְחַלּוֹן לְחַלּוֹן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים לֹא יִטּוֹל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִעְנַע מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים עוֹמֵד וְאוֹמֵר זֶה וָזֶה אֲנִי נוֹטֵל: MISHNAH: [4]: The House of Shammai say, one does not move the ladder125A ladder used only to service dovecotes. from dovecote to dovecote, but one may bend it126One may move it from one opening in the dovecote to another by keeping the top of the ladder in contact with the dovecote. from window to window; and the House of Hillel permit it127While the ladder is necessary to use the dovecote it is not part of the building and taking the ladder away from one is not demolishing part of the building.. The House of Shammai say, one may not take128On the holiday one may not take a pigeon to slaughter as food unless he took the bird in his hand and reserved it for that purpose before the start of the holiday. But for the House of Hillel a timely declaration of intent is enough. unless one had moved when it was still daylight, but the House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.
הלכה: יְהוּדָה בְרִבִּי חִיָיה נְפַק לִבְרָא. שְׁאַלוּן לֵיהּ. סוּלָּם שֶׁלְעֲלִיָיה מָהוּ. אֲמַר לֹון. שְׁרֵי. כַּד דְּאָתָא גַּבֵּי אָבוּהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מַה מַעֲשֶׂה בָא לְיָדֶיךָ. אָמַר. הִיתַּרְתִּי לָהֶן סוּלָּם שֶׁלְעֲלִיָיה. וְאָקִים תַּנָּיֵיהּ קוֹמוֹי וְתַנָּא. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בְּסוּלָּם שֶׁלְשׁוֹבָךְ. אֲבָל בְּסוּלָּם שֶׁלְעֲלִיָיה אָסוּר. מַה בֵין סוּלָּם שֶׁלְשׁוֹבָךְ מַה בֵין סוּלָּם שֶׁלְעֲלִיָיה. אָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא. סוּלָּם שֶׁלְשׁוֹבָךְ אִם עָשָׂה הוּא מְלַאכְתּוֹ מֵאֶתְמוֹל כְּחִישִׁין הֵן. סוּלָּם שֶׁלְעֲלִיָיה יָכוֹל הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ מֵאֶתְמוֹל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. סוּלָּם שֶׁלְשׁוֹבָךְ יָכוֹל הוּא לַעֲמוֹד עָלָיו וְלַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ. סוּלָּם שֶׁלְעֲלִיָיה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲמוֹד עָלָיו וְלַעֲשׂוֹת מְלַאכְתּוֹ. סוּלָּם שֶׁלְשׁוֹבָךְ שֶׁהוּא עוֹלֶה בוֹ לָעֲלִיָיה. סוּלָּם שֶׁלְעֲלִיָיה שֶׁהוּא עוֹלֶה בוֹ לְשׁוֹבָךְ. HALAKHAH: Jehudah the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya129A son of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya. His twin sons, Jehudah and Ḥizqiah, never held a rabbinic title and never served as rabbis of one place, but made it their business to teach Torah at places not served by the rabbinical establishment. went out. They asked him, what are the rules for a ladder to the upper floor? He told them, it is permitted130To move it on the holiday.. When he returned to his father, he asked him, what case came to your hands? He said, I permitted them the ladder to the upper floor. He appointed his Tanna before him, who stated131Tosephta 1:8., “when was this said, about a ladder for a dovecote. But a ladder for the upper floor is forbidden.” What is the difference between a ladder for a dovecote and a ladder for the upper floor? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, a ladder for a dovecote if he had used it the day before for work it would be weak; a ladder for the upper floor may be used for work the day before132The ladder of the dovecote, because it is intended to be moved from one opening to another, is built as light as possible; moving it is no exertion. But the ladder used to access the upper floor, or the roof from the upper floor, essentially is part of the building and is made as heavy as possible. The ladder for the dovecote cannot be used for heavy work without danger that it might break.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, on the ladder for a dovecote he may stand and use it for his purpose; on the ladder for the upper floor he may not stand and use it for his purpose133Since the ladder for the dovecote is so flimsy, anybody who sees him standing on the ladder knows that he does so for a use permitted on the holiday, to take some pigeons as food. But if he is seen moving the heavy ladder in the building to some other place, people will suspect him of using the ladder for work forbidden on the holiday.. A ladder for a dovecote even if it is used to climb to the upper floor; a ladder for the upper floor even if it used to climb to the dovecote134A flimsy ladder may be moved everywhere, a sturdy one nowhere..
בֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹמְרִים לֹא יִטּוֹל אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִיעְנַע מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּתּוֹן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּי. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. וְעוֹד אָמַר רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. עוֹמֵד הוּא אָדָם עַל הַמּוּקְצֶה עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בַּשְּׁבִיעִית וְאוֹמֵר. מִכָּן אֲנִי אוֹכֵל לְמָחָר. וְרִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר לָאו שַׁמֻּתִי הוּא. חוֹמֶר הוּא בַדָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. “The House of Shammai say, one may not take128On the holiday one may not take a pigeon to slaughter as food unless he took the bird in his hand and reserved it for that purpose before the start of the holiday. But for the House of Hillel a timely declaration of intent is enough. unless one had moved when it was still daylight.” The argument of the House of Shammai seems inverted, as we have stated there135Mishnah 4:7.: “In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, a person stands near the drying figs Friday afternoon in a Sabbatical year136Since produce is ownerless in the Sabbatical year, no tithes do apply. The same statement would apply in a regular year if tithes had been given from the drying figs. But since the obligation of tithes applies only to produce ready to be used, fig cakes (and raisins) usually are tithed only if they are fully dry. Since no tithes are due, a declaration of intent is all that is needed to make the food usable on Sabbath or holiday; no physical action is required. and says, from here I shall eat tomorrow.” Is Rebbi Eliezer not a Shammaite137And therefore his statement should be logically consistent with the Mishnah of the House of Shammai. A parallel to this paragraph is in Halakhah 4:7.? One is restrictive if living things are involved.
בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים עוֹמֵד וְאוֹמֵר זֶה וָזֶה אֲנִי נוֹטֵל׃ מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטַּתּוֹן דְּרַבָּנִן. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. וְחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. עַד שֶׁיִּרְשׁוֹם וְיֹאמַר. מִיכָּן וְעַד כָּאן: וְהָכָא אִינּוּן אָֽמְרִין הָכֵן. עוֹד אִינּוּן אִית לָהוֹן חוֹמֶר הוּא בַדָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֵוִי מַקַּשׁ עַל שׁוֹבְכֵיהּ. וְאָמַר. יִזְכֶּה לִי שׁוֹבְכִי לְמָחָר. “The House of Hillel say, he may stand there and say, this and that I shall take.” The argument of the House of Hillel seems inverted, as we have stated there135Mishnah 4:7.: “But the Sages say, only if he delineates and says, from here to there;” and here they are saying so? Still they hold that one is restrictive if living things are involved138While for fig cake the delineation of the heap from which one may take on the holiday is enough, for living birds one requires a declaration which individual birds are selected for the holiday.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Levi was knocking on his dovecote and saying, my dovecote shall provide me tomorrow139Levi (ben Sisi) holds that for the House of Hillel the entire dovecote is selected, one does not need separate identification of the birds and Mishnaiot 1:3 and 4:7 are totally parallel. Cf. Halakhah 4:7..
משנה: זִימֵּן שְׁחוֹרִים וּמָצָא לְבָנִים לְבָנִים וּמָצָא שְׁחוֹרִים שְׁנַיִם וּמָצָא שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲסוּרִין. שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמָצָא שְׁנַיִם מוּתָּרִין. בְּתוֹךְ הַקֵּן וּמָצָא לִפְנֵי הַקֵּן אֲסוּרִין. וְאִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הֵם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין: MISHNAH: If he prepared140This Mishnah is a continuation of the preceding one. If he designated certain pigeons but the ones available clearly are different, the new birds are muqṣeh. black ones and found white ones, white ones and found black ones, two and found three, they are forbidden141If he designated two and found three, if the third is not clearly distinct from the other two it is impossible to know which is available and which is not.. Three and found two, they are permitted142We argue that one left, not that all three left and two new ones took up residence there.. Inside the nest and he found outside the nest they are forbidden, but if there are no others around they are permitted143If the designated birds were chicks unable to fly and only these chicks were around, it does not matter where they are found in the neighborhood of the dovecote, even if other dovecotes are not too far away..
הלכה: מַתְנִיתָה דְרִבִּי. דְּתַנֵּי. מָאתַיִם וּמָצָא מְנָא. (הַמְּנָה נוּטֶָּל) [מְנָה מוּנַח וּמְנָה מוּטָּל]. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. חוּלִין. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הָאוֹמֵר לִבְנוֹ. מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי בְּזָוִית זוֹ. וּמָצָא בְזָוִית אַחֶרֶת. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ חוּלִין. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יָסָא. דִּרִבִּי הִיא. דְּתַנֵּי. מָאתַיִם וּמָצָא מְנָא. (הַמְּנָה נוּטָּל) [מְנָה מוּנַח וּמְנָה מוּטָּל]. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. חוּלִין. חָזַר וְאָמַר. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. שַׁנְיָיא בַגּוֹזָלִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִפְרוֹחַ. וְהָא תַנָּא רִבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בַּר שָׁאוּל. הוּא הַדָּבָר בַּגּוֹזָלִים הוּא הַדָּבָר בַּבֵּצִים. הֲוֵי דִּרִבִּי הִיא. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. תַּמָּן. אָבִיו הִנִּיחַ וּבְנוֹ מָצָא. בְּרַם הָכָא. הוּא הִנִּיחַ הוּא מָצָא. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כֹּהֵן אָמַר קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. הוֹרֵי רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא בְמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי כְּהָדָא דְרִבִּי. HALAKHAH: [5]: The Mishnah is Rebbi’s144The statement that if three chicks are selected but only two found, that we presume that one flew away, but not that all three flew away and these are new ones., as it was stated145Tosephta Ma`aser Šeni 5:7, Babli 10b. The entire paragraph is in Ma`aser Šeni 4:9 (Notes 160–166) with the quotes changed as appropriate.: “200 and he found a mina, (the mina was taken away) [a mina was deposited and a mina taken away]146The corrector’s text is the Babli’s and the Tosephta’s; it should be deleted. The scribe’s text in parentheses is confirmed by Gand the parallel in Ma`aser Šeni., the words of Rebbi. But the Sages are saying, it is profane.147Rebbi holds that if a smaller amount is found it is the remainder of the original dedicated amount. The Sages hold that if money was set aside for Second Tithe and the exact amount was not recovered, it is different money and never dedicated. They must hold that if three chicks were selected but only two found, these are forbidden as never selected.” There, we have stated148Mishnah Ma`aser Šeni 4:12 (Note 146).: “If somebody said to his son, ‘Second Tithe is in that corner’ but he found it in another corner, that is profane.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Assi, this is Rebbi’s, as we have stated145Tosephta Ma`aser Šeni 5:7, Babli 10b. The entire paragraph is in Ma`aser Šeni 4:9 (Notes 160–166) with the quotes changed as appropriate.: “Two hundred and he found a talent, a talent was taken, the word of Rebbi, but the Sages say, it is profane.” He turned around and said, this is everybody’s opinion since pigeon chicks usually start to fly149Babli 10b, as final opinion. In this opinion, the two cases are not comparable.. But did not Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul state, the same rule applies to pigeon chicks and to eggs150If on the eve of the holiday he found a number of eggs and instead of taking them away he declared them food for the holiday, but then the next morning he found a different number.? Therefore, it is Rebbi’s. There, his father put it there and he found, here, his he put it there and he found it151This would be a different reason to find the two cases not comparable.. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Abba bar Zavda instructed according to Rebbi for Second Tithe152While the two cases are not comparable, they follow parallel rules..
אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר. בְּשֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם שְׁתֵּי קִינִּים. אֲבָל אִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא קַן אֶחָד לֹא בְדָא. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. אִם אֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא הֵן הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ מוּתָּרִין: [אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר בּוּן.] בְּשֶׁאֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא גוֹזָל אֶחָד בִּלְבַד. [קַן אַחַת שְׁחוֹרִים בִּלְבַד.] Rebbi Yudan said, this153Discussion of the statement in the Mishnah that if chicks are forbidden who could not fly when designated in the dovecote and then found in front if the dovecote. is only if there were there two broods. But if only one brood is there it does not apply154If there is no probability that these may be from another place.. But did we not state, “if there are no others around they are permitted”155Is not R. Yudan’s statement that of the Mishnah?? [Rebbi Yose bar Abun said,]156The corrector’s additions in parentheses are without bases in the sources and have to be deleted. if there only is a single chick available157One might interpret the Mishnah as permitting the use only if there is only one chick and the identity is guaranteed. But following R. Yudan it is sufficient if there is only one brood, even if only part of the chicks are designated as food. Differently in the Babli 11a.. [Only one brood of black ones.]156The corrector’s additions in parentheses are without bases in the sources and have to be deleted.
שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. הַמְּלָחֵם אֵת הַתְּרִיסִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב חַיָיב מִשּׁוּם בּוֹנֶה. וְקַשְׁיָא. דָּבָר שֶׁאִילּוּ עֲשָׂאוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב חַטָּאת. בֵּית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין אַף לְהַחֲזִיר. רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הִתִּירוּ סוֹפוֹ מִפְּנֵי תְחִילָּתוֹ. שֶׁאִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲזִיר אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ פּוֹתֵחַ. וְלֹא יִפְתַּח. אַף הוּא מְמָעֵט בְּשִׂמְחַת יוֹם טוֹב. אָמַר רִבִּי אָחָא. מַחֲזִיר. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יַחֲזִיר כָּל־צוֹרְכוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּשֶׁאֵין שָׁם פֶּתַח. אֲבָל יֵשׁ שָׁם פֶּתַח מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ דֶּרֶךְ הַפֶּתַח. 162While this text belongs here it also is found in Šabbat 12, Notes 39–44. Samuel said, anybody who tightly closes the shutters163Greek θυρίς “shield, armor”. on the holiday is liable because of building. This is difficult. Something which if it was done on the Sabbath makes him liable for a purification sacrifice164Following Samuel. the House of Hillel permit to restore165On the holiday.? Rebbi Ḥanania in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They permitted the end because of the start. For if you say that he cannot put them back he will not open. Don’t let him open! Then he detracts from the enjoyment of the holiday. Rebbi Aḥa said, he may put them back on condition that he not restore completely166Then the work is not professional and comparable to writing with the back of one’s hand.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, if there is no door there. But if there is a door he uses the door167If customers can have access to the store without the owner removing the shutters, the House of Hillel will agree that the emergency permit is not valid..
משנה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין נוֹטְלִין אֶת הָעֱלִי לְקַצֵּב עָלָיו בָּשָׂר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶת הָעוֹר לִפְנֵי הַדְּרִיסָה וְלֹא יַגְבִּיהֶנּוּ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ עָלָיו בָּשָׂר וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אֶת הַתְּרִיסִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין אַף לְהַחֲזִיר. MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that one may not take the pestle158Or any other implement whose common use is not for the preparation of food. to cut meat on it, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai say that one may not give the hide to be trampled on159Hides of animals slaughtered as food on the holiday are raw material for the manufacture of leather. The House of Shammai hold that hides stripped of all the meat are industrial material and muqṣeh on the holiday. The House of Hillel hold that (almost) nothing becomes muqṣeh it it was not so at the start of the holiday. In this version of the Mishnah the hides may not be brought to the workplace. nor lift it160Or otherwise move them while muqṣeh. unless meat was left on it, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai say that one may not remove the shutters161Grocery stores usually were shuttered by iron plated movable on hinges; opening the store meant turning the shutters into horizontal sale platforms. Since the grocer may give on credit spices or other food items to housewives whose supply did run out on the holiday, the House of Hillel encourage this by letting the grocer lock his store on the holiday.
In the Babli, the independent Mishnah mss., and as quote in G,the sentence about the shutters is first in the Mishnah. Since this sentence is discussed first in the Halakhah, it seems clear that the order of the items in the Mishnah of the editio princeps, which is not from the ms., is an aberration. but the House of Hillel permit even to return them.
הלכה: [בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין נוֹטְלִין אֶת הָעֱלִי לְקַצֵּב עָלָיו בָּשָׂר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין.] הָא שֶׁלֹּא לְקַצֵּב עָלָיו בָּשָׂר אָסוּר. הָדָא הִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי (בָּא) חִינְנָה בַּר שְׁלֶמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. מוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה בְּזַיָירָה וּמְזוֹרָה וּבוּכְנָה. בְּזַיָירָה. דּוּ עֲצַר בֵּיהּ. וּמְזוֹרָה. דּוּ חֲבַט בֵּיהּ. וּבוּכְנָה. דּוּ כָתַת בֵּיהּ. HALAKHAH: [“The House of Shammai say that one may not take the pestle158Or any other implement whose common use is not for the preparation of food. to cut meat on it, but the House of Hillel permit.”] Therefore, not to cut meat on it is forbidden168Work tools may be used on the holiday only for preparation of food; otherwise they remain muqṣeh.. This is what 169The remainder of the text here is from Šabbat 17, Notes 48–50. R. Nehemiah states there that while the general rule is that implements may be moved and used on Sabbath and holiday, tools of trade may be used only for a direct need of the day. Rebbi (Abba,)170Unjustified deletion by the corrector; the name is confirmed by both parallel sources. Ḥinena bar Shelemiah in the name of Rav said: The Sages agree with Rebbi Neḥemiah about the press, the plank, and the mace; the press with which he presses, the plank on which one beats them, the mace with which he smashes them171The items mentioned all belong to the wine press and represent considerable investment. The mace is used to mash grapes on the plank put over the vat in the wine press..
[בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶת הָעוֹר.] שָׁוִין שֶׁלֹּא יְגָֽרְדֶנּוּ. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בִּמְחובָּר לוֹ. כְגוּפוֹ הוּא. אִם בְּפָרוּשׁ. הָדָא הִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא חִינְנָא קַרְתָּחַיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. דִּיסִיקִיָּא שְׁיֵּשׁ בְּתוֹכָהּ מָעוֹת. נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ כִכָּר וּמְטַלְטְלָהּ. כְּהָדָא אַנְטִיכֵי נַפְלַת עַל רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְשׁוּבְתָא. וְחָֽשְׁבוּן עָלֶיהָ וְרִימוּנָהּ. לֹא שֶׁהֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אֶלָּא בְגִין רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה דְלָא יְסַכֵּן. שָׁוִין שֶׁלֹּא יְמַלְּחֶנּוּ. תַּנֵּי. אֲבָל הוּא מוֹלֵחַ עָלָיו בָּשָׂר לִצְלִי. חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם רַב. מוֹלֵחַ הוּא אָדָם דָּבָר מְרוּבֶּה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹכַל מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלָּא דָּבָר מְמוּעָט. רִבִּי אָחָא בְשֵׁם רַב. מוֹלֵחַ וּמַעֲרִים מוֹלֵחַ וּמַעֲרִים. מְלַח הָכָא וּמְלַח הָכָא. עַד דּוּ מְלַח כּוּלֵּיהּ. [“The House of Shammai say that one may not give the hide.”] They agree that one may not scrape it172Hide which becomes available on the holiday may not be scraped clean from meat fibers; this would be professional preparation for tanning.. Where do we hold? If it is connected to it, it is part of its body173When the House of Shammai ask that a piece of meat be on the hide, they could not mean that the meat be still fully connected to the hide since then their statement would be obvious.. If separated, 174This statement is from Šabbat 16, Notes 79–80. it parallels what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Ḥinena from Cartagena in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: On a saddle bag175Greek δισάκκιον. Literally “double bag”. full of coins one puts a loaf and may move it176While the saddle bag is muqṣeh,anything muqṣeh may be moved if it serves as a basis for something which may be moved. Babli Šabbat 142b.. As the following: an Antiochene cooking vessel fell on Rebbi Jeremiah on the Sabbath; they thought about it177Since cooking is forbidden on the Sabbath, a cooking vessel may not be moved unless the intention is for some use which is legitimate on the Sabbath. and lifted it. Not that practice follows Rebbi Hoshaia but that Rebbi Jeremiah should not be endangered. They agree that one may not salt it. It was stated: but he might salt meat on it to roast178Salting the hide is the first step in the tanning process; as such it is forbidden on the holiday. But since cooking is permitted, the hide may be used as table on which meat is salted before it is roasted. Babli 11a.. The colleagues in the name of Rav: A person may salt a large quantity even though he will be able to eat form it only a small quantity. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rav: One salts cunningly, and salts cunningly; he salts here and salts there until he salted everything179The cunning is that one spreads out the salting process and moves from place to place on the hide until every place has been salted. This is an approved circumvention of the holiday rules to encourage people to eat meat on the holiday, which in absence of refrigeration has to be fresh. Babli 11b..
משנה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לֹא אֶת הַקָּטָן וְלֹא אֶת הַלּוּלָב וְלֹא אֶת סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין: MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say, one may bring neither a small child, nor a lulav, nor a Torah scroll into the public domain, but the House of Hillel permit it180Since in principle everything forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on the holiday except the preparation of food, the House of Shammai forbid carrying in the public domain of anything which is not food nor needed for the preparation of food. The House of Hillel hold that since carrying is permitted for the purpose of preparing or serving food, it is permitted for any purpose legitimate on the holiday..
הלכה: הָא גָדוֹל אָסוּר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ גָדוֹל מוּתָּר. וְלֵיידָא מִילָּה תַנִּינָן קָטָן. בָּא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כוֹחָן שֶׁלְבֵּית שַׁמַּי עַד אֵיכָן הָיוּ מַחְמִירִין. שְׁמוּאֵל מִיטְעַן מֵעֶרֶס לָעֶרֶס. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. נֹאמַר דַּהֲוָה אֵיסְתֶנֵיס. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בָּרֵי הֲוָה מִינִּי וּמִינָּךְ. תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֵּירִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אֲבָנִים שֶׁיָּשַׁבְנוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּנַעַרוֹתֵינוּ עָשׂוּ עִמָּנוּ מִלְחָמָה בְזִקְנוּתֵינוּ. רִבִּי יוֹנָה מְפַקֵּד לַחֲבֵרַיָיא. לָא תֵיתְבוּן לְכוֹן עַל מַסְטוֹבְיָיתָה [בָּרְיָיתָא] דְּסִדְרָה דְבַר עוּלָּא דְּאִינּוּן צְנִינִין. רַב מְפַקֵּד לְתַלְמִידוֹי. לָא תֵיתְבוּן לְכוֹן עַל טַבֻּלָה בַּרְיָיתָא דְסִדְרָא דְּאַסִּי דְּאִינּוּן צְנִינִין. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ הֲוָה נְחַת מַסְחֵי בְהָדֵין דֵּימוֹסִין דְּטִיבֵּרִיָּה. וַהֲוָה מִיסְתַּמִּיךְ עַל תְּרֵין גּוּתַיִּין. שַׁרְעוּן וּזְקָפוּן. שַׁרְעוּן וּזְקָפוּן. אָֽמְרוּן לֵיהּ. מָהוּ הָכֵין. אֲמַר לוֹן. שִׁימַּרְתִּי כוֹחִי לְזִיקְנוּתִי. רַב חוּנָה לָא נְחַת לְבֵית וַועֶדְא. רַב קַטִּינָא שְׁאִיל. לָא כֵן תַּנֵּי. מְטַלְטְלִין אֶת הָאַיסְתֶנֵיסִין. HALAKHAH: Therefore not an adult181Since the Mishnah could be read that the House of Hillel only permit to carry a baby but not anybody able to walk by himself.? Rebbi Samuel, the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, even an adult is permitted. For what purpose was stated “a small child”? It comes to inform you of the strength of the House of Shammai, how far they are restrictive. Samuel was carried from bed to bed182It is not clear whether these were his own beds or, since he was a medical man, whether he was carried in a litter on his visits to the sick, as explicitly endorsed in the next paragraph.. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Yasa, let us say that he was asthenic183Greek ʼασθενής.. He told him, he was healthier than I and you. It was stated, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi <yose>184Added from G.Here starts a fragment of an Ashkenazic text edited by J. Sussman in Kobez al Yad xii (xxii) 1994 (A). says, the stones on which we sat on in our youth make war against us in our old age. Rebbi Jonah ordered the colleagues, do not sit on the [outside]185Corrector’s addition, unsupported by any source, to be deleted. stone benches of the assembly186The house of study. of Bar Ulla because they are cold. Rav commanded his students, do not sit on the outside table of the assembly of Issy because it is cold. Rebbi Abba went down to bathe in the public baths of Tiberias, leaning on two Goths187Babli Ketubot 62a, Berakhot 60a.. They fell down and he lifted them up, they fell down and he lifted them up. One asked him, what is this? He said to them, I preserved my strength for my old age. Rav Huna did not come to the house of assembly. Rav Qatina asked, was it not stated that one carries the asthenics?
רַב חוּנָה הוֹרֵי לְרֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא לָצֵאת בְּכִסֵּא. רַב חִסְדָּא בָעֵי. לֹא כֵן תַּנֵּי. אֵין יוֹצְאִין בַּכִּסֵּא אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים. אֲפִילוּ תַלְמִיד חֲכָמִים אֵינוֹ טוֹעֶה בַדָּבָר הַזֶּה. וְרַב חוּנָה טָעֵי. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה הוֹרֵי לְבַר גֵּירוֹנְטִי אַסְיָא מִיטְעַנָּה בַסַּדִּינָא מֵיעוֹל מְבַקְּרָא בַּיישִׁיָיא בְשׁוּבְתָא. מִיָישָׁא בַּר בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִיטְעַן בַסַּדִּינָא מֵיעוֹל מִידְרוֹשׁ בַּצִּיבּוּרָא בְשׁוּבְתָא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְרִיקָן לְרִבִּי זְעוּרָה. כַּד תֵּיעוֹל לַדְּרוֹמָא אַתְּ שְׁאִיל לָהּ. אִשְׁתְּאָלַת לְרִבִּי סִימוֹן. אֲמַר לוֹן רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שֶׁצּוֹרֶךְ לָרַבִּים בּוֹ. אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּא יִצְרְכוּ לוֹ הָרַבִּים. דֵּלֹמָא. רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר וְרִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי וְרִבִּי מַתַּנְיָה הוֹרֵי פִיתָּא לְאֻרְסִקִינָס בְּשׁוּבְתָא. שֶׁמָּא יִצָּֽרְכוּ לוֹ הָרַבִּים. Rav Huna instructed the Head of the Dispersion188A: “the wife of the Head of the Diaspora.” Since it is not clear whether this text is a source or a compilation, and the statement contradicts the following discussion, it should not be accepted. to go out in a chair189To be carried on the holiday. Since the Head of the Diaspora was the quasi-king of the Jews of Babylonia, his actions can be classified as public needs.. Rav Ḥisda asked, was it not stated, one does not go out in a chair, whether men or women? Even a student of the Sages does not err in this matter, and Rebbi Huna erred190But certainly for public needs it is permitted to use a chair. Babli 25b.? Rebbi Jeremiah instructed Bar Gerontios the healer to be carried on a sheet when going visiting the sick on the Sabbath191If he is carried on an improvised contraption he can take his medical equipment with him, which he could not do were he walking. Since the way of transportation is not a common one, it is only rabbinically forbidden. Since the carrying needs several carriers, it is a Sabbath infraction depending on the action of several persons and neither prosecutable nor generating liability in the sense of the Sabbath laws.. Miasha the grandson of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi was carried on a sheet when going preaching in public on the Sabbath. Rebbi Zeriqan said to Rebbi Ze`ira, when you go to the South, ask about this. It was asked from Rebbi Simon. Rebbi Simon told them in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, not only for the needs of the public but also for a possible need of the public192A general instruction that for urgent public needs the Sabbath (and holiday) restrictions on transportation may be circumvented as described in the previous Note.. Example: Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Abba Mari, and Rebbi Mattaniah instructed {to bring}193Ginzberg’s reading in G; the edition of the Jerusalem Talmud by the Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2001, reads “to bake”. This is the expression used by the Yerushalmi in Ševi`it 4:2 (Note 28) and its copy in Sanhedrin 3:6, where it is reported that R. Jonah and R. Yose, greater authorities than the three rabbis mentioned here, permitted baking bread for the army of Ursicinus (the legate of the Emperor Gallus in Syria starting 351 C. E.) Since the paragraph deals with transport, Ginzberg’s reading seems to be more appropriate. The rabbis instructed the people to bring bread to the Roman army on the Sabbath, probably by having several people doing the carrying, and to prepare for it even though no request was made before the start of the Sabbath. bread to Ursicinus on the Sabbath, for a possible need of the public.
תַּנֵּי. וְלֹא אֶת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ. בֵּית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. וְאָמַר רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָה בַּר רַב יִצְחָק. הָדָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר. בְּמַפְתֵּחַ שֶׁלְאוֹכְלִין. אֲבָל בְּמַפְתֵּחַ שֶׁלְכֵּלִים לֹא בְדָא. וְהָא רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ יְתִיב וּמַתְנֵי וּמַפְתְּחָא דִפְּלֹמַנְטָרִין בְּיָדֵיהּ. פִּילְפְּלִין הֲוָה לֵיהּ בְּגַוָוהּ. It was stated: And not the key; the House of Hillel permit193In Tosephta 1:11 there is a statement that any key may be carried in one’s hand (but not tied to the belt, which is the usual weekday dress.). And Rav Hoshaia the son of Rav Isaac194No such sage is known otherwise. Read with G: “Rav Hoshaia in the name of Rebbi Isaac.” said, this refers to a key of edibles, but not to a key of implements. But did not Rebbi Abbahu sit and teach, and a key of a jewel box195Greek διπλωματάριον. in his hand? He had pepper inside.
משנה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים אֵין מוֹלִיכִין חַלָּה וּמַתָּנוֹת לַכֹּהֵן בְּיוֹם טוֹב בֵּין שֶׁהוּרְמוּ מֵאֶמֶשׁ בֵּין שֶׁהוּרְמוּ מֵהַיּוֹם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. אָֽמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה חַלָּה וּמַתָּנוֹת מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן וּתְרוּמָה מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מוֹלִיכִין אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה כָּךְ לֹא יוֹלִיכוּ אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת. אָֽמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל לֹא. אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בַּתְּרוּמָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זַכַּאי בַּהֲרָמָתָהּ תֹּאמְרוּ בַּמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁזַּכַּאי בַּהֲרָמָתָן׃ MISHNAH: The House of Shammai are saying, one may not bring ḥallah196The priest’s part of bread dough (Num. 15:20). and priests’ parts197The priest’s part of profane slaughter, Deut. 18:3. to a Cohen on the holiday, whether they have been separated the day before or on the day itself, but the House of Hillel permit. The House of Shammai said to the House of Hillel, it is an equal cut. Ḥallah and priests’ parts are a gift to the Cohen, and heave199The priest’s part in agricultural harvest, Num. 18:12. is a gift to the Cohen. Just as one may not bring heave to the Cohen, so one may not bring these parts. The House of Hillel said to them, no. If you mention heave where he has no right to separate, what can you say about the gifts which he may separate200Since harvest is forbidden on the holiday, clearly it must be finished before the holiday. Since it is a deadly sin to eat from grain, wine, or olive oil from which heave was not taken, separating heave is an indispensable part of the harvest and must be finished before the holiday. Therefore one may ask that the priests’ parts in agricultural produce must be delivered before the holiday. But since baking and slaughtering for meat is permitted on the holiday, ḥallah and priest’s parts may be separated on the holiday and there is no reason to forbid their delivery.?
הלכה: תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ בֵית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל. שֶׁמּוֹלִיכִין אֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁהוּרְמוּ בַיּוֹם טוֹב. וְאֶת הַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁהוּרְמוּ מֵעֶרֶב יּוֹם טוֹב עִם הַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁהוּרְמוּ בַיּוֹם טוֹב. עַל מַה נֶחְלְקוּ. עַל הַמַּתָּנוֹת שֶׁהוּרְמוּ מֵעֶרֶב יּוֹם טוֹב לְעַצְמָן. שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּי אוֹסְרִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. HALAKHAH: It was stated201Tosephta 1:12, Babli 12b.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel did not disagree that one may bring parts which were separated on the holiday, as well as parts which were separated before the start of the holiday with parts separated on the holiday. Where did they disagree? About parts which were separated before the start of the holiday by themselves, where the House of Shammai forbid and the House of Hillel permit.”
וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּבֵית הִלֵּל. תְּרוּמָה אֵינוֹ זַכַּאי בַּהֲרָמָתָהּ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלֶיהָ תְנַיי. זוֹ מִפְּנֵי זוֹ. וְלָמָּה תַנִּינָן חַלָּה. מִפְּנֵי חַלָּה שֶׁהוּרְמָה בְיוֹם טוֹב. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. הַלָּשׁ עִיסָּה בְיוֹם טוֹב. מַפְרִישׁ חַלָּתָהּ בְּיוֹם טוֹב. לָשָׁהּ מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וְשָׁכַח לְהַפְרִישׁ חַלָּתָהּ. אָסוּר לְטַלְטְלָהּ. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לִיטּוֹל מִמֶּנָּהּ. עִירֵס. לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא לָשׁ. אֲבָל עִירֵס לֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל אָחוֹי דְּרִבִּי בְרֶכְיָה. תִּיפְתָּר בְּעִיסָּה טְמֵיאָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַפְרִישׁ חַלָּתָהּ אֶלָּא בַסּוֹף. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּדִין הָיָה בְעִיסָּה טְהוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא יַפְרִישׁ חַלָּתָהּ אֶלָּא בַסּוֹף. תַּקָּנָה תִיקְנוּ בָהּ שֶׁיַּפְרִישֶׁנָּהּ תְחִילָּה שֶׁלֹּא תִיטָמֵא הָעִיסָּה. מַתְנִיתָה בְיוֹם טוֹב שֶׁלְפֶּסַח. אֲבָל בָּעֲצֶרֶת וּבַחַג מוּתָּר. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵירִבִּי בּוּן רִבִּי חוּנָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. אֲפִילוּ בָעֲצֶרֶת וּבַחַג אָסוּר. עַל שֵׁם וְכָּל־מְלָאכָה֙ לֹא־יֵֽעָשֶׂ֣ה בָהֶ֔ם. It is difficult for the House of Hillel, could he not have the right to separate heave? Think of it, if he made a stipulation202Demai 7:5: “R. Isaac ben Eleazar said, a person can say on Friday, this shall be heave tomorrow, but nobody can say on the Sabbath, this shall be heave tomorrow.” Therefore it is possible to actually separate heave on the Sabbath or a holiday if the modality of separation was stipulated the day before.! One because of the other203Since in general heave may not be delivered to the Cohen on the holiday, one makes no exemption for the rare case in which delivery would be possible.. And why was ḥallah stated? Because of ḥallah which was separated on the holiday. As it was stated:204Tosephta 1:14. The text from here to the end of the Halakhah also is in Pesaḥim3:3, Notes 68–72. “if one kneads dough on a holiday, he separates its ḥallah on the holiday. If he kneaded it before the holiday but forgot to take its ḥallah, it is forbidden to move it; it is unnecessary to say, to take ḥallah from it.” If he mixed water and flour? He only mentioned “kneaded”, so not when he mixed205Even though Mishnah Ḥallah 3:1 permits separating ḥallah immediately after mixing the flour with water.? Rebbi Samuel, brother of Rebbi Berekhiah, said: explain it if the dough was impure where he takes ḥallah only at the end. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it should have been the rule that for pure dough one should take ḥallah only at the end. They instituted that one should take it at the start, lest the dough become impure206Since then only the ḥallah has to be guarded from impurity but not the dough itself.. The Mishnah is about the holiday of Passover; therefore on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is permitted207The remark applies both to Tosephta Yom Ṭov 1:14 and Mishnah Pesaḥim 3:3.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun, Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, even on Pentecost and Tabernacles it is prohibited, because of no work shall be done on them208Ex. 12:16. Since impure ḥallah may not be eaten, it may not be baked on a holiday..
משנה: בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים תַּבְלִין נִידּוֹכִין בְּמָעוֹךְ שֶׁל עֵץ וְהַמֶּלַח בַּפַּךְ וּבְעֵץ הַפָּרוּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים תַּבְלִין נִידּוֹכִין כְּדַרְכָּן בְּמָדוֹךְ שֶׁל אֶבֶן וְהַמֶּלַח בְּמָדוֹךְ שֶׁל עֵץ: MISHNAH: The House of Shammai say that spices are pounded in a wooden mortar, and salt in a container or with a cooking spoon. But the House of Hillel say that spices are pounded normally in a stone mortar and salt in a wooden mortar209The House of Shammai hold that since pounding spices and salt could have been done the day before, the general permission to cook cannot be extended to these preparations; they must be done in a way different from working day usage to avoid a biblical transgression. The House of Hillel hold that pounded spices quickly use their taste (in the absence of containers which can be tightly closed); therefore pounding spices is an integral part of the cooking process and may be done as on a weekday, but for taking salt from a block they agree with the reasoning of the House of Shammai..
הלכה: וְיִדּוֹךְ מֵאֶתְמוֹל. חֲבֵרַיָיא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שֶׁטַּעֲמָן מָר. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שֶׁטַּעֲמָן פָּג. HALAKHAH: Could he not pound the day before? The colleagues in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because they taste bitter; Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, because they lose their taste210Babli 14a..
שְׁמוּאֵל שְׁחַק עַל סִיטְרָא דִמְדוֹכְתָא. רַב אָמַר. כָּל־הַנִּידּוֹכִין נִידּוֹכִין כְּדַרְכָּן. רַב חוּנָה רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַשּׁוּם וְהַשַּׂחֲלַייִם וְהַחַרְדָּל נִידּוֹכִין כְּדַרְכָּן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָעוֹשֶׂה אֹלִינְתִּין בַּשַּׁבָּת חַיָיב מִשֵּׂם מַרְקִיהַּ. הָא בְיוֹם טוֹב מוּתָּר. רִבִּי חִזְקִיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הָעוֹשֶׂה אֹלִינְתִּין בְּיוֹם טוֹב אָסוּר מִשֵּׂם מַרְקִהַּ. יִצְחָק דִּיהָבָא שְׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָהוּ מִישְׁחוֹק קוֹנְדִּיטוֹן בְּיוֹמָא טָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. שְׁרֵי. וְייַב לִי וַאֲנָא שָׁתִי. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי שְׁרֵי. רִבִּי זְעוּרָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. מָאן דַּעֲבִיד טַבָּאוּת לָא שְׁחִיק לֵיהּ מֵאֶיתְמֹל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אִין. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דִּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הָכָא הוּא אָמַר. שְׁרֵי. וְהָכָא הוּא אָמַר. אָסוּר. אֶלָּא בִגִין דְּרִבִּי אַבָּהוּ יָדַע דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָא מַחְמִר וְאִינּוּן מַחְמִרִין. בְּגִין כֵּן הוּא עֲבַד דִּכְוָותְהוֹן. אִית דְּבָעֵי מֵימַר. הָכֵין אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָאן דְּבָעֵי דִיֵיא טָב לָא שְׁחִק לֵיהּ מִן דְּאֶיתְמֹל. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה שְׁאַל לְקַלִּה דְרוֹמָה עַבְדֵּיה דְּרִבִּי יוּדָן נְשִׂיָיא. שְׁחֵק הוּא מָרָךְ קוֹנְדִּיטוֹן בִּיוֹמְא טָבָא. אֶמַר לֵיהּ. אִין. וְכָל־מִינֵי סִיקְרִיקוֹן. רִבִּי יִצְחָק בֵּירִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְשֵׁם רִבִּי אִימִּי אָבוֹי דְרִבִּי אֶבְדוֹמָא דִצִיפּוֹרִין. מַה פְלִיגִין. לִיתֵּן לַצְּלִי. הָא לִקְדֵירָה מוּתָּר. רִבִּי נָחוּם אָמַר. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בָעֵי. הָדָא אִטְרִיתָא. לְיַבֵּשׁ אָסוּר. לִקְדֵירָה מוּתָּר. עַל יַד עַל יַד צְרִיכָה. Samuel pounded on the side of the mortar211If he had to grind some spices he turned the mortar on its side to make it different from weekday pounding. Since this is a statement of what he did, not what he taught, it seems that this was a personal precaution since in his medical practice he might also pound some materials for compounding a medicine which if done in the ordinary way would be a biblical infraction, as mentioned later in this paragraph.. Rav said, anything that is pounded may be pounded in its ordinary way212If it may be ground into fine particles at all, it may be done the way it is done on weekdays. Babli 14a in the name of Samuel.. Rav Huna212If it may be ground into fine particles at all, it may be done the way it is done on weekdays. Babli 14a in the name of Samuel., Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Garlic, and cress, and mustard seed are pounded in their ordinary way213If this name belongs to the chain of transmission it would have to be Rebbi Huna. But since Galso has the title “Rav”, and Rav Huna was the leader of the second generation of Amoraim in Babylonia, one has to read the statement as indicating two sources. Both Rav Huna and R. Jeremiah quoting R. Immi in the name of R. Joḥanan state .…. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes oenanthium214A wine-based medicine (Galen 13. 540). In the Babli Šabbat 140a defined as a suspension of balsamum in old wine. on a Sabbath is liable because of compounding. Is it therefore permitted on a holiday215Since it is stated to be forbidden only on a Sabbath and at least the wine base of the medicine is food.? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Making oenanthium on a holiday is forbidden216The way it is formulated for the Sabbath it cannot be formulated for the holiday. Compounding (spices or medicines) is one of the 39 categories of work forbidden on the Sabbath, an unintended infraction makes the person liable for a purification sacrifice since the intentional infraction is a capital crime or deadly sin. But work on holidays is a simple prohibition which never can trigger liability for a purification sacrifice, and intentional infraction is not a deadly sin. Therefore “liable” fits for the Sabbath and “forbidden” for the holiday. because of compounding. Isaac Gold asked Rebbi Joḥanan, may one pound for spice wine217Latin conditum (vinum), usually used for the finished product, here used for the spices to be put into the wine. Even though spice wine might be used for medical purposes it also is a drink for healthy people and therefore its preparation is permitted on the holiday. on a holiday? He said to him, it is permitted. <rebbi isaac from atosha asked rebi simeon be laqish, may one pound to make spice wine on a holiday? he said to him, it is permitted;>218Sentence missing in the ms. and printed edition. Since the sentence is both in Gand A, it belongs to the text, and was dropped by the scribe because of homeoteleuton. give it to me and I shall drink. Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Abbahu: Would one not act well in pounding it the day before? He said to him, yes. The argument of Rebbi Abbahu is inverted. Here he says permitted, and there he says forbidden219While R. Abbahu did not explicitly say that pounding spices for spice wine is forbidden on the holiday, he agreed with R. Ze`ira that it was better to pound the day before, implying that on the holiday it must be done in a way different from weekday action, against Rav’s ruling at the start of the paragraph.. But since Rebbi Abbahu knew that Rebbi Ze`ira was restrictive, and that they220The Babylonians, including R. Ze`ira the immigrant from Babylonia. are restrictive, therefore he agreed with them. Some want to say that so he said to him: If one wants that it be good he will not pound it the day before. Rebbi Ze`ira asked Kallidromos221Reading of S. Liebermann, Tarbiz 3, p. 209., the slave of Rebbi Judah the Prince, does your master pound to make spice wine on a holiday? He said to him yes, and all kinds of cuts of meat222Mincing the meat with the knife, sica. Probably this means to make sausage on the holiday.. Rebbi Isaac ben Rebbi Elazar in the name of Rebbi Immi, the father of Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris. Where do they disagree223The disagreement of the Houses of Shammai and Hillel about pounding salt. When it is used sparingly, both agree that it may be pounded in a wooden mortar in the regular way. If great quantities are needed the House of Shammai is restrictive. Babli 14a.? For grilling. Put for the pot it is permitted. Rebbi Naḥum said, Rebbi Samuel bar Abba asked about noodle dough. To let it dry is forbidden, for the pot it is permitted, part and part is questionable224Making noodle dough for use after the holiday clearly is a biblical violation and forbidden. Making soup noodles for immediate use clearly is permitted. Making both cannot be biblically forbidden; whether it is rabbinically forbidden is left undecided..