תלמוד על ביצה 1:1

⁶⁰This does not refer to the Sabbath but to a holiday; it is from Beṣah 1:12 (י). It is quoted here as introduction to the next paragraph. On a holiday one may carry in the public domain, therefore one also may send a gift to a friend. But the rules of muqṣeh still apply and the only implements that may be moved are those which may be used on the holiday. Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul stated: It is forbidden to send jewelry. Rebbi Mana⁶¹Following the text in Beṣah. said, they said only to send, therefore to wear it is permitted. It was stated: One may move the shofar⁶²The ram’s horn. As a musical instrument it cannot be used on a holiday other than New Year’s Day. Since writing is forbidden on the holiday, a writing tablet cannot be used. The mirror will be discussed in the next paragraph. This Tosephta (13:16 ed. Liebermann) applies to the Sabbath as well as to holidays since one speaks of moving in a private domain (Babli 35b/36a). to let a child drink, the writing tablet, and the bell, and the mirror, to cover vessels. Rebbi Abun said, a Mishnah says that it is forbidden to wear it, as we have stated⁶³Mishnah Beṣah 1:11.: “Anything which one may use on the holiday one may send.” If you say that it is permitted to wear it should be permitted to send. And what is that which was stated: One may move the shofar to let a child drink, [the writing tablet,]⁶¹Following the text in Beṣah. and the bell, and the mirror, to cover vessels? If they are called implements⁶⁴They must have permitted use. For example, the shofar must have been use on a preceding weekday as bottle for a toddler; the other things mentioned must have been used as covers.. So far gold jewelry. Also even silver jewelry? They said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah forbidden, [and] they said in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah permitted. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, I know the beginning and the end. Small girls were growing up in Rebbi Jeremiah’s dwelling. He went and asked Rebbi Zeˋira, who told him: do not forbid and do not permit⁶⁵Since in principle silver jewelry is forbidden to wear on a holiday as much as gold jewelry, he cannot permit. But since the girls would not listen to him if he would forbid, he should not prohibit. Since this is a rabbinic prohibition only, it is better that people should be ignorant of the prohibition than violate it knowingly..

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.).

It was stated: One does neither select, nor grind, nor sift. He who selects, or grinds, or sifts, on the Sabbath is stoned. On a holiday he absorbs the 40³²⁶The 39 lashes which are the standard punishment for breaking biblical prohibitions for which no other biblical punishment is specified. The Babli disagrees and declares these activities only rabbinically prohibited on a holiday, cf. Tosaphot 95a, s. v. והרודה.
While preparing food is biblically permitted on a holiday as shown later in the paragraph, there is a dispute between the anonymous majority and R. Jehudah whether this includes preparations which could have been made the day before without impairing the quality of the food, which the majority prohibits and R. Jehudah and Rabban Gamliel permit. It is stated here that for the majority the prohibition is biblical, at least concerning preparations for baking.. But did we not state³²⁷Mishnah Beṣah 1:9. This is the version of the Mishnah always quoted in Halakhot.: “he selects normally, on his chest, or from a pot”? Rebbi Ḥanina from Antonia said, this is Rabban Gamliel’s, for “Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” And (did we not state) [was it not stated]³²⁸The text in parentheses from the Leiden ms. is inferior to that of the other two sources in brackets., in the household of Rabban Gamliel they were grinding pepper in their mills³¹⁴This and the following paragraphs are from Beṣah 1:10 (י) and refer to Mishnah Beṣah 1:9: “The House of Shammai say, he who selects legumes on a holiday selects the food and eats. But the House of Hillel say, he selects normally, on his chest, or from a basket, or from a pot, but not on a table, nor with a sieve. Rabban Gamliel says, also he puts them in water and scoops off.” The House of Shammai permit only to pick out the edible parts and eat them directly. The House of Hillel hold that separating the beans from the chaff belongs to the activities permitted as preparation of food and in principle permit any kind of selection; they only require that it should not be done in a weekday fashion. They certainly will agree that the restrictions are purely rabbinical.? It is permitted to grind but forbidden to select. Rebbi Yose (in the name of Rebbi Ila) [ben Rebbi Abun]³²⁸The text in parentheses from the Leiden ms. is inferior to that of the other two sources in brackets.: Grinding as a category was not permitted³²⁹Rabban Gamliel will agree that milling flour is biblically forbidden on a holiday; he will hold that grinding pepper in a peppermill is not professionally grinding and not something which may be done the day before without impairing the quality of the spice.. And from where that one may neither select, nor grind, nor sift? Rebbi (Yose) [Aḥa]³²⁸The text in parentheses from the Leiden ms. is inferior to that of the other two sources in brackets. in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: No work shall be done on them up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread³³⁰Ex. 12:16–17. The text omitted by the quote “up to” permits preparation of food on a holiday, as quoted later in the paragraph.. (It was stated.)³³¹This has to be deleted with the other two sources. Rebbi Yose asked, but did one not infer cooking only from there? Rebbi Yose did not say so, but Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Only what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, up to and you shall guard the unleavened bread³³²There is nothing missing between the two quotes, so that the note “up to” seems to be superfluous. The meaning is explained in Tosaphot Beṣah 3a s.v. גזרה (at the end): vv. 16,17 form a unit: what can be eaten by every person this alone may be made by you, and you shall guard the unleavened bread. Any preparation of mazzah which requires guarding against possible leavening is permitted on the holiday, anything preceding this, i. e., mixing flour with water to make dough, is forbidden.. Ḥizqiah stated in disagreement³³³Against the Mishnah where the House of Hillel permit selecting. G ends here.: only, every, person, are diminutions, not to select, nor to grind, nor to sift on a holiday.