אמר רבי יוסי מתניתא אמרה כן שבועות שתים שהן ארבע לא לחיוב. ודכוותה יציאות השבת שתים שהן ארבע לחיוב. והא תני דלתות ההיכל שנים שהן ארבע אית לך למימר לא לחיוב ולא לפטור. ניתני שנים עשר פטור. לא אתינן מיתני אלא פטור שהוא כנגד חיוב. אמר ר' חייה בר אבא מהו ההן פטור דתנינן הכא מותר. אמר רבי יוסי עני ועשיר אחד הן ומנו אותן חכמים שנים. הכנסה והוצאה אחד הן ומנו אותן חכמים שנים. יציאות השבת אין הכנסה בכלל. המוציא מרשות לרשות אין המכניס בכלל. נישמעינה מן הדא דמר ר' יסא בשם ר' יוחנן הכניס חצי גרוגרת והוציא חצי גרוגרת חייב. מניין שהוצאה קרוייה מלאכה רבי שמואל בר נחמן בשם רבי יונתן שמע להן מן הדא (שמות לו) ויצו משה ויעבירו קול במחנה לאמר איש ואשה אל יעשו עוד מלאכה לתרומת קודש ויכלא העם מהביא. נמנעו העם מלהוציא מבתיהן וליתן לגיזברים. ר' חזקיה בשם ר' אילא אפילו הכנסה את שמע מינה. כשם שנמנעו העם מלהוציא מבתיהן וליתן לגזברין כך נמנעו הגיזברין מלקבל מידן ולהכניס ללישכה. ר' חזקיה בשם ר' אחא שמע כולהן מן הדין קרייא (ירמיהו יז) לא תוציאו משא מבתיכם ביום השבת. הכניס חצי גרוגרת והוציא חצי גרוגרת חייב.
Come and see, [let us test this hypothesis by implication from our mishnah]: "...from the time that the Kohanim go in to eat their terumah." It is [still close to] daytime. It is as soon as the stars come out!? [and the Tosefta says:] "...from the time when people usually go in to eat their bread on the eve of the Sabbath." That is an hour or two after nightfall! [These are obviously two very different times.] And yet you say: "These opinions are close enough to be equal!?" --Rabbi Yose said: "Let the problem be resolved [by claiming that the Tosefta refers only] to those small villages whose way is to go on up [home] while it is still day, to spare themselves from the animals." It teaches in a Baraita: "The one who recites [the Shema] before this has not fulfilled their obligation. If so, why do we recite it [before nightfall] in the synagogue? Rabbi Yose said: 'We do not recite it in the synagogue to fulfill its obligation. Rather, [we recite it] so that we may stand up in prayer after a word of Torah." Rabbi Zeira in the name of Rav Yirmiyah: "If there is doubt whether he made the blessings after his food or not, he should make the blessings [even though he may be doing it a second time]. For it is written (Deut. 8:10) 'And you shall eat, and you shall be satisfied, then you shall bless [the LORD your God...]' If there is doubt whether he prayed or not, he should not pray [as he may have already done so.]" But he disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan. For Rabbi Yohanan said: "If only a person could pray the entire day!" Why? For prayer is never a waste. If there is doubt whether he recited [Shema] or not, we may gather from this baraita: "The one who recites [the Shema] before this has not fulfilled their obligation." And is not before [nightfall] a time of doubt? And yet you say "he should recite [Shema]." This implies that if there is doubt whether he recited [Shema] or not, he should recite [Shema]. [From Tosefta 1:1] "The indicator of this is when the stars come out. And though there is no proof of it [from Scripture], there is a trace of it: (Neh. 4:21) '...we were doing the labor, and half of them were holding the spears from the break of dawn until the stars came out.' And he writes: '...it is guard-time for us by night and labor by day." How many stars should come out so that it becomes night? Rabbi Pinhas in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Papa: "One star, surely day. Two, doubt. Three, surely night." "...two doubt," [really]? But is it not written, "...until the stars came out!?" Rather, [the plural] "stars" indicates two! [Not three!]--The first one doesn't count. [An unattributed baraita:] "If he sees one star on the eve of the Sabbath and performs a creative task, he is exempt [from punishment]. Two, he brings a conditional guilt offering, Three, he brings a sin offering. On the departure of the Sabbath, if he sees on star and performs a creative task,
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
239This paragraph also is in Beṣah 1:3; its main subject are the rules of the holiday. However, since Mishnah Megillah 1:8 states that the only difference between the rules for Sabbath and for holidays is that preparation of food is permitted on holidays, the discussion is relevant also for the rules of the Sabbath. 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 holiday240It is presumed that carcass meat, which is forbidden as human food, is not prepared as animal feed. For R. Joḥanan (Babli Beṣah 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 food241He 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 holiday242This refers to Mishnah Beṣah 1:2. Since preparation of food is permitted on a holiday, it is permitted to slaughter for food. If a bird or a wild animal is slaughtered, its blood has to be covered by dust (Lev. 18:13). If no dust is available, the House of Shammai permit to take a prong and dig up some dust; the House of Hillel hold that in this case one should not slaughter but they agree that if one slaughtered one may take a prong and dig. Digging is a derivative of ploughing as noted in the preceding paragraph.. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Ila: ordinary ploughing was not permitted243Since no spade 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, this244Both the Houses of Shammai and of Hillel do permit to use a spade; they must hold that the intent determines liability. is Rebbi Simeon’s, for Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needs the essence of the matter245There is liability only if the prohibited action is the object of his intent, not a by-product. Cf. Chapter 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 23246Since 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 same247Mishnah Beṣah 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 same248Chapter 2, Note 19. Babli 31b.? Should we say, Rebbi Meïr, Rebbi Yose, and Rebbi Simeon all three said the same249Then 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]250The words in brackets are added from the text in Beṣah. “Everybody else questions whether R. Meïr agrees with R. Simeon while you assert this. Then you will have to question what in the sequel is stated as the rabbi’s opinion.” S. Liebermann refers to this sentence the remark of Or zaruaˋ Šabbat 55, that he suspects this Yerushalmi paragraph to contain a scribal error.? If one harvested for grasses251He was weeding and using the uprooted weeds as fodder. This is forbidden on a holiday as it is forbidden on the Sabbath, but since there is a question of multiple liabilities the reference is to 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 harvested252In the Babli, these rabbis are identified with R. Jehudah.. Rebbi Mana said, the words of the rabbis support Rebbi Yose, for Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, if one compressed a fish253A pickled herring which may be eaten cold on the Sabbath. Babli 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 sauce254This is all one liability; since he compressed the fish he produced fish sauce and is liable. The Babli holds that R. Simeon agrees that in this case there is liability; technically this is called פְּסִיק רֵישָׁא “cut off the head”. The image is that of a murderer who claims that he never intended to kill his victim, only to cut off his head. Since death is an automatic consequence of cutting off the head, he is guilty of murder. Similarly in the Babli, R. Simeon agrees that an automatic consequence of an intended action is included in the intended action; the Yerushalmi disagrees (and, therefore, does not declare that R. Simeon defines practice.).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah
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..
