משנה: מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּעַרְבֵי פְסָחִים עַד חֲצוֹת עוֹשִׂין. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת אֵין עוֹשִׂין. הַהוֹלֵךְ מִמְּקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין לִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינָן עוֹשִׂין אוֹ מִמְּקוֹם שֶׁאֵינָן עוֹשִׂין לִמְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין נוֹתְנִין עָלָיו חוּמְרֵי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיָּצָא מִשָּׁם וְחוּמְרֵי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָלַךְ לְשָׁם. וְאַל יְשַׁנֶּה אָדָם מִפְּנֵי הַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת׃ MISHNAH: In a place where one was used to work on Passover Eve before noon one works; in a place where one was used not to work on Passover Eve before noon one does not work1Since on Passover Eve one has to eliminate leavening, bake mazzot, prepare for the evening celebration, and in Jerusalem slaughter the Pesaḥ sacrifice, there were places where the day was considered a kind of holiday. “Work” here is not to be understood in the technical sense of the rules of Sabbath and holidays but as “gainful employment”.. If one goes from a place where he works to one where he does not work, or from a place where he does not work to one where he works, one puts on him the restrictions of the place he left and the restrictions of the place to which he comes, but a person should not change because of the controversy2As a matter of principle one should not use the leniencies of one place to avoid stringencies of another, but if this would lead people to question the person’s behavior or their own usage, one has to refrain from stringencies which are not based on well-founded practice. The Babli reads this Mishnah differently and takes “one puts on him the restrictions of the place he left and the restrictions of the place to which he comes” as absolute rule..
הלכה: מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה כול׳. כְּתִיב שָׁ֛ם תִּזְבַּ֥ח אֶת־הַפֶּ֖סַח בָּעָ֑רֶב. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הוּא. שְׁלוּחוֹ מְנַיִין. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וּבִשַּׁלְתָּ֙ וְאָ֣כַלְתָּ֔. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר שָׁ֛ם תִּזְבַּ֥ח אֶת־הַפֶּ֖סַח בָּעָ֑רֶב. אֵינוֹ בְדִין שֶׁתְּהֵא עָסוּק בִּמְלַאכְתָּךָ וְקָרְבָּֽנְךָ קָרֵב. אֲבָל אָֽסְרוּ מִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה. כְּהָדָא דְתַנֵּי. לָהֵן כָּל־אִינַשׁ דִּיהֲוֵי עֲלוֹהִי אָעִין וּבִיכּוּרִין. הָאוֹמֵר. הֲרֵי עָלַי עֵצִים לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְגִיזִירִים לַמַּעֲרָכָה. אָסוּר בְהֶסְפֵּד וְתַעֲנִית וּמִלַּעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בוֹ בַיּוֹם. HALAKHAH: “In a place where one was used to work,” etc. It is written, there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening3Deut. 16:6.. Not only he, from where his agent? The verse says, and you shall cook and you shall eat4Deut. 16:7. Since the Pesaḥ sacrifice must be eaten in a group (Ex. 12:3–4), the singular in these verses cannot mean that the slaughter has to be done by the eater; this is proof that it may be delegated.. Why does the verse say, there you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening? It is not in order that he should be occupied by his work while his sacrifice is offered5The singular is interpreted that even if the sacrifice is presented by an agent, the owner still has to behave as if he himself were present.. As what was stated6The first sentence is a quote from Megillat Taˋanit. The entire text is copied in Ḥagigah 2:4., “therefore anybody who has an obligation for wood and first fruits. He who says, I am taking upon me [to bring] wood for the altar and logs for the arrangement7The arrangement of the firewood on the altar. on that day is forbidden funeral orations, and fasting, and working.”
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. אִילֵּין תְּמִידִין קָרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁלְכָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל אִינּוּן. אִם יִהְיוּ כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹלִין לִירוּשָׁלִַם. לֵית כְּתִיב אֶלָּא שָׁל֣וֹשׁ פְּעָמִ֣ים ׀ בַּשָּׁנָ֡ה יֵרָֽאֶ֨ה כָל־זְכֽוּרְךָ֜. אִם יִהְיוּ כָל יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹשְׁבִין וּבְטֵילִין. וְהָֽכְתִיב וְאָֽסַפְתָּ֣ דְגָנֶ֔ךָ. מִי אוֹסֵף לָהֶן אֶת הַדָּגָן. אֶלָּא שֶׁהִתְקִינוּ הַנְּבִיאִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע מִשְׁמָרוֹת. עַל כָּל־מִשְׁמָר וּמִשְׁמָר הָיָה עוֹמֵד בִּירוּשָׁלִַם [שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים וְשֶׁל לְוִיִּם וְשֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵלִים]. תַּנֵּי. עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה אֶלֶף. עָמוּד מִירוּשָׁלִַם וַחֲצִי עָמוּד מִירִיחוֹ. אַף יְרִיחוֹ הָֽיְתָה יְכוֹלָה לְהוֹצִיא עָמוּד שָׁלֵם. אֶלְּא בִשְׁבִיל לַחֲלוֹק כָּבוֹד לִירוּשָׁלִַם הָֽיְתָה מוֹצִיאָה חֲצִי עָמוּד. הַכֹּהֲנִים לַעֲבוֹדָה וְהָלְּוִיִּם לַדּוּכָן וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹכִיחִין עַל עַצְמָן שֶׁהֵן שְׁלוּחֵיהֶן שֶׁלְכָּל־יִשְׂרַאֵל. 8From here on there also is a parallel in Taˋaniot 4:2 (נ). Rebbi Jonah said, these daily sacrifices are the offerings of all of Israel9By the statement of the preceding paragraph, no man in Israel would be permitted to work both in the morning and in the evening.. Could all of Israel ascend to Jerusalem? Is it not written10Deut. 16:16. G instead quotes Ex.23:14., three times a year all your males shall be seen? If all of Israel would sit there and do nothing, is there not written11Deut. 11:14., you shall harvest your grain? Who would harvest their grain? But the early prophets12David, Asaph, Heman, and Yedutun, 1Chr. 25:1. instituted 24 watches; from each watch there were [Cohanim, Levites, and Israel] present in Jerusalem. It was stated, twenty-four thousand131Chr. 27:1. The verse is read as meaning that every month there were 24’000 representatives of the people at the Temple.. A stand-by group14Since the Cohanim were changed every week, the people’s representatives also were changed every week; only one quarter of the 24’000 on stand-by were actually needed for one week. The Babylonian term for עָמוּד is מַעֲמָד (Taˋanit 27a). The actual numbers in Second Temple times were small. from Jerusalem, and half a stand-by group from Jericho. Jericho also could have produced a full stand-by group, but to give precedence to Jerusalem it only produced half a stand-by group. The Cohanim for service, the Levites for the podium15For the musical accompaniment of the Temple service., and the Israel as proof that they are the agents for all of Israel16These are forbidden any work while the Daily Sacrifice is offered but everybody else may work..
תַּנֵּי רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר. כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִייִם וְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְשִׁיר מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַקָּרְבָּן. רִבִּי אַבִּין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. טַעֲמֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. כָּל הַקָּהָל֙ מִֽשְׁתַּֽחֲוִ֔ים. אֵילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהַשִּׁ֣יר מְשׁוֹרֵ֔ר אֵילּוּ הַלְּוִיִּם. וַחֲצֹצְרוֹת מַחְצְצרִ֑ים אֵילּוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים. הַכֹּ֕ל עַ֖ד לִכְל֥וֹת הָעוֹלָה. הַכֹּל מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַקָּרְבָּן. רִבִּי תַנְחוּמָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. וָאֶתְּנָ֙ה אֶת־הַֽלְוִיִּ֜ם נְתוּנִים ׀ לְאַֽהֲרֹ֣ן וּלְבָנָ֗יו מִתּוֹךְ֘ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒. אֵילּוּ הַלְּוִיִּם. לַעֲבֹ֞ד אֶת־עֲבֹדַ֤ת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד. אֵילּוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים. וּלְכַפֵּר֭ עַל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל. זֶה הַשִּׁיר. וְלֹ֨א יִֽהְיֶ֜ה בִּבְנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ נֶ֔גֶף בְּגֶ֥שֶׁת בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל אֶל־הַקּוֹדֶשׁ. אֵילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל. 17The first sentence is also in Eruvin 10 (Note 141,ר). The text there reads “musical instruments”, which is required by the context there and must be understood here also since the choir is subsumed under “Levites”. It was stated: “Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, Cohanim, Levites, Israel, and song invalidate the sacrifice18A sacrifice requiring a wine offering is invalid if not accompanied by the Levite’s song..” Rebbi Abbin19In the other sources: Abun. in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar:202Chr. 29:28. Since this is not a pentateuchal verse it only can prove what people did or, as explained there in v. 25, what was prophetic instruction. The entire congregationwere bowing down, these are Israel, and the song was sung, these are the Levites, and the trumpets were trumpeting, these are the Cohanim, everything up to the end of the elevation offering, all are indispensable for the sacrifice. Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rebbi Eleazar understood it from here21Num. 8:19.: And I gave the Levites to Aaron and his sons from the midst of the Children of Israel, these are the Levites, to work the service of the Children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, these are the Cohanim, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song22In this version the implication is incomprehensible. It is understandable in the Babli, Arakhin 11a, where it is a tannaitic statement: “Song invalidates the sacrifice, the words of R. Meïr, but the Sages say, it does not invalidate. What is R. Meïr’s reason? The verse says, and I gave the Levites to Aaron and his sons from the midst of the Children of Israel, to work the service of the Children of Israel in the Tent of Meeting, and to atone for the Children of Israel.” Since the Levites had three biblical obligations in the Sanctuary, viz., to carry the Tent, to be its watchmen, and to sing. Since only the third can be classified as ritual service, it must be what is referred to as atoning., so there shall be no plague when the Children of Israel approach the Sanctuary, these are Israel.
מְנַיִין שֶׁהַשִּׁיר קָרוּי כַפָּרָה. חִינְנָא אֲבוֹי דְּרַב יַנְטָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי בְנָיָה. וּלְכַפֵּר֭ עַל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל. זֶה הַשִּׁיר. מְנַיִין שֶׁהַשִּׁיר מְעַכֵּב. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בּוּלֶווְטָה בְשֶׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. וּלְכַפֵּר֖ עַל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל. זֶה הַשִּׁיר. From where that the song is called atonement? Ḥinena the father of (Rav Yanta) [Bar Nata]23The version of G and Taˋaniot in brackets must be preferred over that of the text here in parentheses since a Galilean cannot carry the title “Rav”. in the name of Rebbi Banaia: and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song. From where that the song invalidates? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon βουλευτής24“The city councillor”., in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, and to atone for the Children of Israel, that is the song.
הֲרֵי פֶסַח הֲרֵי קָרְבָּנָן שֶׁלְכָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא וְתָלוּ אוֹתוּ מִנְהָג. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. שַׁנְייָא הִיא. שֶׁאֵין הַפֶּסַח קָרֵב אֶלְּא מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָן. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בָעֵי. אָמַר. הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעֲלָן. מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַטָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. פֶּסַח שֶׁהִקְרִיבוֹ בַּשַּׁחֲרִית אֵינוֹ פֶסַח. עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּהָ בַשַּׁחֲרִית עוֹלָה הִיא. Is not Pesaḥ a sacrifice of all of Israel and they made it dependent on usage25Work should be biblically forbidden.? Rebbi Abbahu said, there is a difference, since the Pesaḥ cannot be offered before noontime. Rebbi Abbahu asked, if one said, I have the obligation to bring an elevation offering in the afternoon, is he permitted to work in the morning26As stated earlier (Note 7), the entire day he is forbidden gainful work until he has discharged his obligation.? Rebbi Yose said, a Pesaḥ which he brought in the morning is no Pesaḥ; an elevation offering which he brought in the morning is an elevation offering27The sacrifice is valid even though he has to bring another one to fulfill his vow..
כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים תָּלוּ אוֹתָן בַּמֵּנְהָג. נַשְׁייָא דִנְהִיגִין דְּלָא לְמֵיעֲבַד עוֹבְדָא בָאֲפוּקֵי שׁוּבְתָא אֵינוֹ [מִנְהָג]. עַד יַפְנֵי סִדְרָא [מִנְהָג]. בַּתְּרִייָא וּבַחֲמִשְׁתָּא [אֵינוֹ מִנְהָ]ג. עַד יִתְפַּנֵּי תַעֲנִיתָא מִנְהָג. יוֹמָא דַעֲרוּבְתָא אֵינוֹ מִנְהָג. מִן מִנְחְתָא וּלְעֵיל מִנְהָג. יוֹמָא דְיַרְחָא מִנְהָג. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. נַשְׁייָא דִנְהָגָן דְּלָא לְמִישְׁתַּייָא מִן דְּאָב עֲלִיל מִנְהָג. שֶׁבּוֹ פָּֽסְקָה אֶבֶן שְׁתִייָה. מַה טַעֲמָא. כִּי־הַ֭שָּׁתוֹת יֵֽהָרֵס֑וּן. 28The following two paragraphs are also in Taˋaniot 1:6 (נ); in a slightly different order it is copied in Raviah §495 (vol. 2, p. 119). Everything they made dependent on usage. If women use not to work after the end of the Sabbath, it is no [{legitimate} usage]; until the end of the seder29The additional prayer at the end of the evening service at the end of the Sabbath. it is [{legitimate} usage]. On Monday and Thursday30Which were common fast-days of the pious in Palestine (cf. L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter, vol. 1, p. 483, §6.), it is no [{legitimate} usage], to the end of the fast-day prayers it is [legitimate] usage. On the day of the willow twigs31The Seventh Day of Tabernacles. Since the following day is a holiday, it is appropriate that the preparations be finished by the time of the afternoon prayers. it is not {legitimate} usage, after afternoon prayers it is {legitimate} usage. On the day of the New Moon it is {legitimate} usage. Rebbi Zeˋira said, if women use not to weave32Between the first and the tenth of Av. from the start of Av it is {legitimate} usage, for the šetiah stone stopped to exist33The stone in the Holiest of Holies in the Temple.. What is the reason? For the woofs will be torn down34Ps. 11:3. If read as the foundations will be torn down it is appropriate for the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple..
אָמַר רִבִּי חִינְנָא. כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים מִנְהָג. אָעִין דְּשֵׁיטִּין הֲווּ בְּמִגְדַּל צְבָעַייְה. אָתוּן וּשְׁאָלוּן לְרִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה חֲבֵרֵהוֹן [דְּרַבָּנִין. מָהוּ מֵיעֲבַד בָּהֶן עֲבוֹדָה]. אָמַר לָהֶן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ בָהֶן אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם בְּאִיסּוּר אַל תְּשַׁנּוּ מִנְהָג אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם נוּחֵי נֶפֶשׁ. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בָּשֵׁם רִבִּי אַבִּין. כָּל־דָּבָר שֶׁאינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר וְטוֹעֶה בוֹ בְאִיסּוּר נִשְׁאַל וְהֵן מַתִּירִין לֹו. וְכָל־דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ בוֹ שֶׁהוּא מוּתָּר וְהוּא נוֹהֵג בּוֹ בְאִיסּוּר נִשְׁאַל וְאֵין מַתִּירִין לוֹ. Rebbi Ḥinena said, everything they made dependent on usage. There were acacia trees in Migdal Sevaya35Since by a Galilean tradition the Tabernacle was built in the desert from perfect logs of acacia wood (Mimosa nilotica L.) cut for this purpose by Jacob and his sons when they travelled to Egypt [Gen. rabba 94(4).]. They came and asked Rebbi Ḥanania, the colleague of the rabbis, may one use them for work? He told them, since your ancestors used to treat them as forbidden, do not change the usage of your deceased ancestors. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abbin19,In the other sources: Abun.36Even though all three sources have R. Eleazar in the name of ... , it must be ... in the name of R. Eleazar.. In any case which is permitted but in error he treats it as forbidden, if he asks they will permit him. But in any case where he knows that it is permitted but he has the usage to treat it as forbidden, if he asks they will not permit him37Since he intentionally accepted an unnecessary stringency, it has the status of a vow..
יוֹשְׁבִין עַל סַפְסֵלוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי בַשַּׁבָּת. מַעֲשֶׂה בְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁיָּשַׁב לוֹ עַל סַפְסֵילוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי בַשַּׁבָּת בְּעַכּוֹ. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ. לֹא הָיוּ נוֹהֲגִין כֵּן לִהְיוֹת יוֹשְׁבִין עַל סַפְסֵילוֹ שֶׁלְגּוֹי בַשַּׁבָּת. וְלֹא רָצָה לוֹמַר לָהֶן. מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן. אֶלָּא עָמַד וְהָלַךְ לוֹ. 38Babli 51a. One may sit on a Gentile’s bench on the Sabbath. It happened that Rabban Gamliel39Gamliel III, son of Rebbi. was sitting on a Gentile’s bench at Acco on a Sabbath. They said to him, it is not our usage to sit on a Gentile’s bench on a Sabbath. He did not want to tell them that it is permitted to do this but got up and went away.
מַעֲשֶׂה בִיהוּדָה וּבְהִלֵּל בָּנָיו שֶׁלְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לִרְחוֹץ בַּמֶּרְחַץ בְּכָבוּל. אָֽמְרוּ לָהֶן. לֹא נָהֲגוּ כָּן לִהְיוֹת רוֹחֲצִין שְׁנֵי אַחִים כְּאַחַת. וְלֹא רָצוּ לוֹמַר. מוּתָּר כֵּן. אֶלָּא נִכְנְסוּ זֶה אַחַר זֶה. וְעוֹד שֶׁיָּֽצְאוּ לְטַייֵל בְּקוֹרְדִּקֵיוֹת שֶׁלְזָהָב בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת בְּבִירוֹ. אָֽמְרוּ לָהֶן. לֹא נָהֲגוּ כָּאן לִהְיוֹת מְטַייְלִין בְּקוֹרְדִּקֵיוֹת שֶׁלְזָהָב בַּשַּׁבָּת. וְלֹא רָצוּ לוֹמַר לָהֶן. מוּתָּר כֵּן. אֶלָּא שִׁילְּחוּ בְיַד עַבְדֵּיהֶן. It happened that Jehudah and Hillel, Rabban Gamliel’s39Gamliel III, son of Rebbi. sons, went to bathe in the bathhouse of Kabul40Jos. 19:27.. They said to them, it is not our usage that two brothers should be bathing together. They did not want to tell them, so it is permitted, but entered one after the other. Also they went to promenade in gilded bark sandals40aLatin corticea at Biro41In Upper Galilee. in the night of the Sabbath. They said to them, it is not our usage to promenade in gilded bark sandals on the Sabbath. They did not want to tell them, so it is permitted, but sent them by their slaves.
וְלֹא סוֹף דָּבָר פֶּסַח. אֶלָּא אֲפִילוּ מִנְהָג קִיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן חַרְמֵי טִיבֵּרִיָּה וּגְרוֹסֵי צִיפּוֹרִי דְּשׁוּשֵׁי עַכּוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְחוֹלוֹ שֶׁלְמוֹעֵד. נִיחָא גְּרוֹסֵי צִפּוֹרִין דְּשׁוּשֵׁי עַכּוֹ. חַרְמֵי טִיבֵּרִיָּה וְאֵינָן מְמָעֲטִין בְּשִׂמְחַת הָרֶגֶל. צָד הוּא בְחַכָּה צָד הוּא בְמִכְמוֹרֶת. אֲפִילוּ כֵן אֵינָן מְמָעֲטִין בְּשִׂמְחַת הָרֶגֶל. רִבִּי אִימִּי מֵיקַל לוֹן. שֶׁהֵן מְמָעֲטִין בְּשִׂמְחַת הָרֶגֶל. Not only the Pesaḥ but also usage42Religious observances which have no basis in codified practice.. The net-fishermen43They fish with boats on Lake Genezareth. The following also is in Moˋed qaṭan 2:5 (מ, Genizah text g).. of Tiberias, and the farina millers of Sepphoris, and the grain splitters44They pound grain to split it into two or three parts for the preparation of cereal. of Acco, accepted not to work on the intermediate days of a holiday45When preparation of food and provisions is permitted without restriction.. One understands the farina millers of Sepphoris, and the grain splitters of Acco. The net-fishers of Tiberias, do they not diminish the enjoyment of the holiday46Since they leave the people of Tiberias without fish for the latter parts of the holiday week.? He may fish with a hook; he may fish with a stationary net. Even so, do they not diminish the enjoyment of the holiday? Rebbi Immi cursed them because they diminish the enjoyment of the holiday47Baseless religious observances of private groups are to be rejected if they interfere with public needs. The Babli Moˋed qaṭan 13b approves of the action of the fishermen’s guild which they base at Acco..
גָּלוּ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם וּבִיקְשׁוּ לַחֲזוֹר בָּהֵן. ייָבֹא כְהָדָא דְאָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. בְּנֵי מֵישָׁא קִיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁלֹּא לְפָרֵשׂ בַּיָּם הַגָּדוֹל. אֲתוֹן שֲׁאָלוֹן לְרִבִּי. אָֽמְרִין לֵיהּ. אֲבוֹתֵינוּ נָהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְפָרֵשׂ בַּיָּם הַגָּדוֹל. אָנוּ מֶה אָנוּ. אָמַר לָהֶן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ בָהֶן אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם בְּאִיסּוּר אַל תְּשַׁנּוּ מִנְהַג אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם נוֹחֵי נֶפֶשׁ. וְאֵין אָדָם נִשְׁאַל עַל נִדְרוֹ. תַּמָּן מִשֶׁנָּדַר נִשְׁאַל. בְּרַם הָכָא אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם נָֽדְרוּ. כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן יְהוּ מוּתָּרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנַנְיָה. לֹא מָן הָדָא אֶלָּא מָן הָדָא. רִבִּי תַלְמִידֵיהּ דְרִבִּי יוּדָה הֲוָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה אָמַר. אָסוּר לְפָרֵשׂ בַּיָּם הַגָּדוֹל. If they were exiled from one place to another and wanted to change their ways48If the certain restriction is particular to a place and the people from this place migrate to another where there is no established usage, are they bound by their prior usage?? Would it be as Rebbi Abba said, the people of Mesha49From the context it seems that this place was in Palestine on the coast and the question is whether they are permitted to go by sea to another port on the coast when they could go by land (in a more laborious way) without leaving the Land. took it upon themselves not to travel on the ocean. They came, asked Rebbi, and said to him, our forefathers used not to travel by sea; what is our situation? He said to them, since your forefathers treated it as a prohibition, do not change the usage of your deceased ancestors. May a person not ask about his vow50Most of Tractate Nedarim deals with the modalities of rabbinic annulment of vows.? There he asks when he made the vow, but here their ancestors made the vow. Then they should be permitted a fortiori51If restrictive usage is considered a vow then automatically it cannot oblige people who were not present when the vow was made.. Rebbi Ḥanania said, it is not because of this but because of the following. Rebbi was the student of Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Jehudah said, one is forbidden to travel by sea52In order to avoid leaving the Land (Moˋed qaṭan 3:1). R. Jehudah forbids leaving the rabbinic Land of Israel even though he defines the biblical land of Canaan as including most islands of the Mediterranean (Ševiˋit 6:1 Note 93, Ḥallah 4:8 Note 99, Babli Giṭtin 8a.).
רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְאֵינוֹ אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם בַּל תִתְגּוֹדְדוּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵילּוּ עוֹשִׂין כְּבֵית שַׁמַּי וְאֵילּוּ עוֹשִׂין כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּי וּבֵית הִלֵּל אֵין הֲלָכָה כְבֵית הִלֵּל. אָמַר לֵיהּ. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵילּוּ עוֹשִׂין כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר וְאֵילּוּ עוֹשִׂין כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֵין הֲלָכָה כְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תְּרֵי תַנָּיִין אִינּוּן עַל דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר וּתְרֵין תַּנָּיִין אִינּוּן עַל דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הֲרֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים בִּיהוּדָה נָהֲגוּ כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. וּבַגָּלִיל נָהֲגוּ כְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי. אָמַר לֵיהּ. שַׁנְייָה הִיא. שֶׁאִם עָבַר וְעָשָׂה בִיהוּדָה כְגָלִיל וּבְגָלִיל כִיהוּדָה יָצָא. הֲרֵי פּוּרִים. הֲרֵי אֵילּוּ קוֹרִין בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר וְאֵילּוּ קוֹרִין בָּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִי שֶׁסִּידֵּר אֶת הַמִּשְׁנָה סָֽמְכָהּ לַמִּקְרָא. מִשְׁפָּחָה֙ וּמִשְׁפָּחָ֔ה מְדִינָ֥ה וּמְדִינָה֭ וְעִ֣יר וָעִ֑יר. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is it not forbidden because of “do not split into sects”53How can the Mishnah require people who move from place to place to follow the more restrictive practice? Does this not violate the basic principle of uniform practice based on an aggadic interpretation of Deut. 14:1. Babli Yebamot 13b.? He said to him54He wants to restrict the prohibition of concurrent different practices to cases of fundamental differences in the formulation of rules, not to differing interpretations of existing rules., in case these follow the House of Shammai and those the House of Hillel. But between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel does practice not follow the House of Hillel55The answer is unsatisfactory since in post-Jabneh Judaism, practices of the House of Shammai are not recognized anyhow.? He said to him, in case these follow Rebbi Meïr and those follow Rebbi Yose. But between Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Yose, does practice not follow Rebbi Yose? He answered him, there are two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Meïr and two Tannaim regarding Rebbi Yose56While it is agreed as general rule that between R. Meïr and R. Yose practice follows R. Yose (Maˋserot 1:7 Note 200; Babli Eruvin 46b), this is only a general rule, not an invariable principle. There are many examples where other Tannaim follow the lines of argument of R. Meïr and R. Yose and practice was decided only in later generations.. He said to him, is there not New Year’s Day and the Day of Atonement, where in Judea one used to follow Rebbi Aqiba and in Galilee Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri57Mishnah Roš Haššanah 4:6,7 explains their differences in the way prayers and shofar blowings are combined on New Year’s day and the Day of Atonement in a Yovel year.. He told him, there is a difference since if he changed and in Judea acted as in Galilee or in Galilee as in Judea he discharged his obligation58Everybody will agree that either way fulfills the biblical requirement.. But is there not Purim, where these read on the fourteenth and those on the fifteenth59Days of reading of the Esther scroll in the month of Adar. Since the date of reading is determined by the place of reading, it is obvious that a visitor has to read with the local people.? He told him, he who edited the Mishnah based it on Scripture60Esth. 9:28. Since the differences are of biblical origin, the example is irrelevant for the rabbinic prohibition.: Family and family, country and country, and town and town.
נִיחָא מִמְּקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין לִמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין. מִמְּקוֹם שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין לִמְקוֹם שֶׁעוֹשִׂין. וִיבַטֵּל. שֶׁהֲרֵי כַמָּה בְטֵילִין יֵשׁ לוֹ בְאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. רִבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. בְּמַתְמִיהַּ. One understands “one goes from a place where he works to one where he does not work.” “From a place where he does not work to one where he works,” why should he not be idle? Are there not may idlers at that place? Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he causes to wonder61The question is about the last sentence in Mishnah 1, “but a person should not change because of the controversy.” It is clear that when one comes to a place where nobody works, he cannot work there, and “one puts on him the restrictions of the place he left and the restrictions of the place to which he comes.” But if he comes to a place where one works, why should he not be required to be idle? If he is required to be idle in all circumstances then the last clause, “but a person should not change because of the controversy” would be pointless. The answer is that the person who comes from a place where he does not work should not work at the other place if he might appear as an idler; he may not stay idle if he would have to declare this as a religious principle. The Babli 51b disagrees..