json/Mishnah/Seder Moed/Mishnah Shabbat/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Shabbat",
    "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
    "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
    "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
    "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה שבת",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Moed"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "\tThe yetzioth [acts of carrying out from one domain to another] of Shabbath [i.e., stated in respect to Shabbath (Hachnasoth — acts of bringing in — are also called \"yetzioth,\" in that there is taking out from one domain to another). The reason we have \"yetzioth\" (lit., \"goings-out\") rather than \"hotzaoth\" (\"carryings-out\"), is that the language of Scripture is being followed, viz. (Exodus 16:29): \"Let a man not go out of his place,\" which is expounded as referring to \"carrying out,\" i.e., Let a man not go out of his place with his receptacle in hand to gather the manna.] (The yetzioth of Shabbath) are two, [two that are Torah-interdicted — hotza'ah and hachnasah vis-à-vis the ba'al habayith (the house occupant), who stands inside, in the private domain. And for these two he is liable: for unwitting violation, a sin-offering; for witting violation, kareth (\"cutting-off\"); and for forewarning, stoning, as with all the other forbidden Sabbath labors.], which are four inside [The rabbis added two as forbidden ab initio when the labor is performed by two, one picking up; the other, putting down. For (by Torah ordinance) two who perform a labor (together) are not liable, it being written (Leviticus 4:27): \"…in doing it, one of the mitzvoth of the L rd which may not be done\" — in doing all of it, and not part of it. The same applies to all of the Sabbath labors. We say: One who did it is liable; two who did it are exempt.], and which are four outside. [two that are Torah-interdicted — hotza'ah and hachnasah vis-à-vis the mendicant, who stands outside, in the public domain. They are four, the rabbis having added two, to be forbidden ab initio, when one picks up and the other puts down.] How so? The mendicant stands outside and the ba'al habayith, inside. If the mendicant extended his hand [with the basket for the loaves of the ba'al habayith] inside, [(\"hotza'ah\" being depicted by way of rich man and poor man to apprise us, incidentally, that a mitzvah coming through a transgression is forbidden, and that there is liability for it)], and placed it into the hand of the ba'al habayith [in which instance he effects \"picking up\" (akirah) from the public domain and \"putting down\" (hanachah) in the private domain], or if he took (the object) from it and brought (it) out [and placed it in the public domain, effecting akirah and hanachah], the mendicant is liable, [having performed a complete labor. These are the two Torah-interdicted labors for the one standing outside. And even though we require akirah from a place which is four by four hand-breadths and hanachah onto a place which is four by four, which does not obtain here, the hand of the mendicant and that of the ba'al habayith not being that large, it is stated in the gemara that a man's hand is considered as four by four in that even very large objects are wont to be placed therein and taken therefrom.], and the ba'al habayith is exempt [exempt, and it is absolutely permitted, for he did nothing]. If the ba'al habayith extended his hand outside and placed it (the object) into the hand of the mendicant, or if he took (the object) from it and brought (it) in, the ba'al habayith is liable and the mendicant is exempt. [These are the two Torah-interdicted labors for the one standing inside.] If the mendicant extended his hand inside [effecting akirah from the public domain] and the ba'al habayith took from it [and put it down inside, effecting hanachah in the private domain]; of if he (the ba'al habayith) placed (the object) into it, [effecting akirah from the private domain] and he [the mendicant] took it out [and placed it in the public domain], they are both exempt, [for neither performed a complete labor. But they are forbidden to do this lest each in himself come to do a complete labor on the Sabbath. These are two rabbinically interdicted labors, one for the mendicant on the outside and one for the ba'al habayith on the inside. (The reason that two acts are not mentioned for each — akirah for the mendicant and akirah for the ba'al habayith; hanachah for the mendicant and hanachah for the ba'al habayith — is that only the akiroth are of significance in this regard, in that they are the beginning of the labor and it is to be feared that he might complete it; but hanachoth, which are the end of the labor, are not reckoned.)] If the ba'al habayith extended his hand outside, and the mendicant took from it, or if he (the mendicant) placed (the object) into it, and he (the ba'al habayith) brought it in, they are both exempt.",
            "\tA man should not sit before the barber close to (the time of) the Minchah prayer before praying. [He should not do so even in the weekdays. This is stated here because of what is to follow (1:3): \"A tailor should not go out with his needle … lest he forget and carry,\" akin to \"A man should not sit before the barber close to Minchah lest he forget and not pray.\" Since there are only a few things to be stated in this regard, they are mentioned first, after which those things pertaining to the Sabbath are expatiated upon. (\"close to Minchah\":) Minchah Gedolah, from six and a half hours on. \"close to Minchah\" is from the beginning of the seventh hour. And though there is ample time (for Minchah Gedolah), this (sitting before the barber) was decreed against, lest the barber's scissors break after he begins cutting and the time for the prayer pass before they are repaired and the haircut is completed.] A man may not enter the bathhouse [close to Minchah, lest he faint], nor the tannery [lest he find that the hides will spoil if he does not move them from their place and tend to them, doing which, he might miss the time for prayer], nor may he eat [even a small meal, lest he tarry over it], nor may judges sit in judgment [even at its conclusion, when the claims of the litigants have already been heard and nothing more remains to be done than to pronounce judgment, (still, they may not do so close to Minchah) lest they find a reason to countermand their intended ruling and return to the beginning of the deliberation.] But if they have begun, [in any of the aforementioned instances], they do not break off, but finish and then pray — [this, on condition that there is enough time to finish the activity before the time for prayer passes. The beginning of hair-cutting is the placing of the barber's sheet on his knees so that hair not fall on his garment. The beginning of the bath — taking off his innermost garment. Others say: taking off his scarf, the first article of clothing to be removed. The beginning of tanning — tying the apron around his shoulders to begin tanning. The beginning of eating — washing the hands. The beginning of judgment — donning the robes to sit in judgment in fear and awe. And if they were already robed and sitting in judgment and another case came before them close to Minchah, the beginning of that judgment is when the litigants begin their presentation.] They break off for the recital of the Shema, but they do not break off for prayer (the Amidah). [This is an independent statement, viz.: Scholars occupied in Torah study break off their study for the recital of the Shema, which has a fixed time, viz. (Deuteronomy 6:7): \"when you lie down and when you arise.\" But they do not break off for prayer, which has no Torah-ordained fixed time. And this applies only to such as R. Shimon b. Yochai and his colleagues, whose Torah was their \"trade.\" But we — since we break off our Torah (study) for our trade, how much more so do we break it off for prayer.]",
            "\tA tailor should not go out with his needle close to nightfall (on Sabbath eve) lest he forget and carry, [even though it is stuck in his garment. And it is a craftsman in the manner of his craft who is liable, it being the way of craftsmen to stick them in their garments when they go out to the marketplace. (\"lest he forget and carry\":) when it gets dark.], nor the scribe with his quill, [which is stuck behind his ear in the manner of scribes]; nor may he remove (yefaleh) lice from his garments. [the Targum of (Deuteronomy 26:13): \"I have removed the holy thing\" is \"palethi kodesh\"] or read [a book] by the light of a lamp (on the Sabbath) [lest he incline it to bring the oil to the wick so that it burn well and he thereby light a fire on the Sabbath. And even if the lamp were two or three lengths in height, it is always forbidden to read by its light unless there be another man with him to guard him, or unless he were  a man of eminence, who would never adjust a lamp.] It was, in truth, stated: The chazan [a teacher of young children] sees (by the light of a lamp) from where the children [begin to] read, [for they did not decree against the possibility of his inclining the lamp for such slight perusal. And the children may read before their teacher by the light of the lamp, for his fear is upon them.], but he may not read [the entire section, for their fear is not upon him, and their guarding is no guarding. And for this reason, too, there is one (sage) who holds that a woman's guarding her husband is no guarding, her fear not being upon him.] Likewise, [to keep one far from transgression, they said that] a zav (a man with a genital discharge) should not eat with (his wife) a zavah, though both of them are unclean] because of (the possibility of) familiarity (conducing to) transgression. [Because of their being alone together, he might come to cohabit with a zavah, who is kareth-interdicted. \"zav and zavah\" are stated for the sake of the greater learning, that even where cohabitation is difficult for them, so that there is reason not to fear such transgression, still, they should not eat with each other.]",
            "\tAnd these [\"One may not remove lice from his garments or read by the light of a lamp\" (above)] are among the halachoth that they stated in the upper chamber of Chananiah b. Chezkiah b. Gurion when they went up to visit him. [The sages wished to secrete the Book of Ezekiel, whose words seemed to contradict words of Torah, e.g., (Ezekiel 44:31): \"All that is carrion or treifah (organically \"torn\") of fowl or of beast the Cohanim shall not eat\" — The Cohanim shall not eat it, but the Israelites may? Likewise, (Ibid. 45:20): \"And thus shall you do on the seventh of the month.\" Where is this offering intimated in the Torah? And Chananiah b. Chezkiah secreted himself in an upper chamber and sat there and explained the Book of Ezekiel.] They took a count and Beth Shammai were (found to be) more numerous than Beth Hillel [Beth Shammai differed with Beth Hillel, and Beth Shammai being more numerous, it was ruled according to them, viz. (Exodus 23:2): \"After many to incline.\"], and they decreed eighteen things on that day. [All eighteen are adduced in the gemara, viz.: If one eats a food of first-degree or second-degree uncleanliness, they decreed that his body assume second-degree uncleanliness and render terumah unfit by contact, (second-degree uncleanliness invalidating terumah). These are two decrees involving food, food of first-degree and of second degree uncleanliness. And if one drinks unclean liquids he also assumes second-degree uncleanliness and invalidates terumah. This is a third decree. The reason that these were decreed against is that sometimes one has in his mouth food that is tamei (ritually unclean) and takes in liquids of terumah, which are thus rendered pasul (unfit); and sometimes he has in his mouth liquids that are tamei, and takes in food of terumah, which is thus rendered pasul. And they decreed (uncleanliness) upon one who had come rosho verubo (his head and most of his body) into drawn water on the same day that he had immersed himself for his uncleanliness; and (they decreed uncleanliness) upon one who was clean to begin with, upon whose head there fell five logs of drawn water — thus, five decrees. The reason for uncleanliness being decreed upon these to impart uncleanliness to men is that they were wont to immerse in stagnant cave-water, after which they would douse themselves with drawn water to remove the foulness — as a result of which they began to say that it was not the cave-water which effected the cleanliness, but the drawn water. They (the sages), therefore, arose and decreed uncleanliness upon them lest they come to immerse regularly in drawn water as in a mikveh. The sixth decree: that scrolls of Scripture render terumah pasul by contact. For in the beginning they would secrete terumah foods with the scrolls, saying that both are holy. When they saw, however, that the scrolls were thereby spoiled (mice nibbling the scrolls together with the food), they decreed that the scrolls — Torah, Prophets, and Writings — render terumah pasul. The seventh: They decreed that hands render terumah pasul, for hands are \"busy\" and touch one's privy parts, and it is offensive to touch terumah with befouled hands and to render it revolting to its eaters. The eighth decree: that foods be rendered unclean by liquids which had been rendered unclean by hands touching them before being washed. For all things which render terumah pasul impart first-degree uncleanliness to liquids — a decree by reason of liquids which come from a sheretz (a creeping thing), which we find to be of first-degree uncleanliness by Torah ordinance. And the reason that all liquid-uncleanliness was decreed to be first-order uncleanliness, though we do not find a similar decree for foods by reason of food-matter coming from a sheretz is that the rabbis were more stringent in respect to liquids, which are (always) susceptible of uncleanliness, not requiring any predisposing factor for such susceptibility, as opposed to foods, which require the addition of water. The ninth decree: Vessels which became tamei through liquids which became tamei through a sheretz. Even though they (the liquids) are of first-degree uncleanliness by Torah ordinance, they cannot impart uncleanliness to men or vessels, for these become unclean only through proto-uncleanliness (av hatumah). But the rabbis ordained that they become unclean through vessels, a decree by reason of liquids of the zav and the zavah (their spittle and urine); for they are av hatumah and render vessels unclean by Torah ordinance. The tenth decree: that the daughters of Cuthites be (regarded as) niddoth from their cradle; that is, from the day of their birth. For a one-day old girl is subject to niddah uncleanliness. But the Cuthites do not expound it thus (see Niddah 4:1), so that when they see (blood in young girls), they do not separate them, for which reason the rabbis made this decree. The eleventh decree: that all movable objects confer uncleanliness with the thickness of a plow-handle, whose surface is a tefach (a handbreadth), but not its thickness. And though by Torah ordinance, there is no tent-uncleanliness with less than (thickness of) a tefach, the rabbis decreed respecting all movable objects whose surface is a tefach, that if one of its heads tented a dead body, and the other, vessels, tent-uncleanliness is imparted to the vessels, a decree by reason of objects a tefach thick, which confer such uncleanliness by Torah ordinance.  The twelfth decree: If one picks grapes to tread them in the wine-press, the liquid which they exude when picked makes them tumah-susceptible, even though it (the liquid) goes lost and he is not intent upon it — a decree lest he pick them in pitch-lined baskets, in which instance, the liquid not going lost, he is intent upon it, and it confers tumah-susceptibility by Torah ordinance. The thirteenth decree: that the growths of terumah be (regarded as) terumah, even with something whose seed perishes, such as grain and pulse — a decree by reason of unclean terumah in the hand of a Cohein, which may not be eaten and which he intends to sow. They decreed that it retain its original designation, so that it is \"terumah teme'ah.\" We fear that he might hold onto it until the time for planting and come to eat of it in its unclean state. The fourteenth decree; If darkness descended upon one (on Sabbath eve) on the road, he gives his purse to a gentile and may not carry it less than four cubits (progressively). The fifteenth and sixteenth decrees: \"One may not remove lice or read by the light of a lamp\" — our Mishnah. The seventeenth: They decreed against the loaf, the oil, the wine, and the daughters of the gentiles. And it is all one decree, as stated: They decreed against their loaf because of their oil, against their oil because of their wine, against their wine because of their daughters, and against their daughters because of \"something else,\" i.e., idolatry. The eighteenth: They decreed that a gentile child confer zav uncleanliness, so that a Jewish child not be familiar with him at risk of sodomy.]",
            "\tBeth Shammai say: Ink [i.e., dyes from which ink is made], dyes [for paints] and karshinim [an animal food, which they would first soak], are not soaked (on Sabbath eve), unless they be soaked (i.e., fully softened) while it is yet day. [Beth Shammai hold that one is exhorted in respect to the resting of his vessels (on the Sabbath), just as he is exhorted in respect to the resting of his beast. And this is, likewise, the reason for (1:6) \"Bundles of flax are not placed into the oven,\" and (Ibid.): \"Nets are not spread.\" As to a lamp burning on the Sabbath and a pot on the stove, where Beth Shammai concede (that it is permitted), this is where he renounces ownership of the vessels, in which instance he is not commanded in respect to their resting.] And Beth Hillel permit it [when the water was put in while it was still day, even though they undergo soaking on the Sabbath, Beth Hillel holding that a man was exhorted in respect to the resting of his beast on the Sabbath, where there is distress for the animal (in not resting), but not in respect to the resting of vessels.]",
            "\tBeth Shammai say: Bundles of flax are not placed into the oven [to whiten], unless they are [fully steamed] while it is yet day; nor wool into the [dyer's] vat, unless the color take [while it is yet day.] Beth Hillel permit it, [i.e., to put it there while it is yet day and have the color take the entire night. Beth Hillel permit it only in a vat removed from the fire. For if there is a fire under it on the Sabbath, it is forbidden — a gezeirah, lest he stir the coals. And the vat must also be closed and sealed with lime — a gezeirah lest he stir and mix it on the Sabbath and be liable by reason of \"cooking\"]. Beth Shammai say: Nets are not spread (for trapping) animals, birds, or fish, unless they be trapped while it is still day. Beth Hillel permit it.",
            "\tBeth Shammai say: One should not sell to a gentile (on Sabbath eve), and he should not load [things onto a donkey] with him, and he should not lift [a load] onto him [i.e., onto his back, for it gives the impression that he is assisting him to carry the load on the Sabbath] — unless he is going to a place that is nearby [i.e., so that the place he wishes to carry it to be close enough to reach while it is still day.] Beth Hillel permit it, [so long as he leaves the door of his house while it is still day].",
            "\tBeth Shammai say: One should not give hides to a (gentile) tanner or clothes to a gentile washerman, unless they can be done while it is still day. And with all, Beth Hillel permit it \"with the sun\" [i.e., so long as the sun is upon the earth, before it sets.]",
            "\tR. Shimon b. Gamliel said: In my father's house they would give white clothing to a gentile washerman three days before Shabbath. [White clothing is difficult to wash and requires three days, and they took upon themselves the more stringent ruling of Beth Shammai. The halachah is not in accordance with Beth Shammai, but with Beth Hillel, who permit it \"with the sun.\"] And they [Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel] are the same (in their ruling) that the beams of the olive press and the circles of the wine press are loaded. [The olives are loaded while it is yet day with the beams of the olive press. After the olives are crushed, heavy beams are loaded upon them and the oil flows from them of itself the entire Sabbath. Those (the weights) of the wine press are called \"circles.\" They were thick boards in the form of a circle. In this, Beth Shammai concur with Beth Hillel. For even if it is done on the Sabbath, there is no sin-offering liability. For the beam is not placed upon the olives until they are first crushed in the mill. Likewise, with grapes. They are first trodden by foot, and even without the beam, the liquid is exuded of itself, albeit, not as readily as with the beam. For this reason it is not similar to (the labor of) threshing (dash)].",
            "\tMeat, onion, and egg are not to be roasted (on Sabbath eve) unless they can be roasted while it is still day [as the food of Ben D'rosa, i.e., one-third cooked, at which point it is edible, and there is no reason to decree \"lest he stir the coals\"]. A loaf is not to be placed in the oven before dark nor a chararah [a kind of cake] on coals, unless its face [i.e., its upper surface] forms a crust [(this being the beginning of baking)] while it is still day. R. Eliezer says: Until its lower surface [on the clay of the stove] forms a crust. [For it bakes first, before the upper surface, and this is sufficient. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Eliezer.] ",
            "\tThe (meat of the) Pesach offering is lowered into the oven (on Sabbath eve) before dark. [The mouths of their ovens were on top, and they would lower the roast into them. And even though normally this is not done, as stated above, here it is permitted, for the men of the company (sharing the offering) are zealous and remind one another, so that they will not come to stir the coals.] And the fire of the wood-pile of the beth hamoked may be fed [a little, without fear that the Cohanim might come to light it after dark, for Cohanim are zealous. (\"beth-hamoked\":) there was a large cell in the azarah (the Temple court), where a wood-pile was constantly kept burning. And the Cohanim would warm themselves there, for they walked barefoot on a marble floor.] And in the borders (i.e., outside the Temple), until the fire catch in most of it. [One must ignite his wood-pile while there is still enough time before it gets dark for the fire to catch in most of it. How much is that? As much as it takes for the flame to ascend of itself without the assistance of chips at its base.] R. Yehudah says: With charcoal, any amount (is sufficient). [Just as with the wood-pile of the beth-hamoked, leniency was exercised with the Cohanim, in the same way, with a charcoal fed fire, leniency is exercised with all men. The fire need catch just slightly, for it does not tend to go out, and he will not come to stir the coals. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah, there being no one who differs with him.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tWith what do we kindle [the Sabbath lamp? With what do we make the wicks and the oils to light?] We do not kindle: neither with lechesh [a kind of woolly substance found in a cedar between the bark and the trunk], nor with chosen [unbeaten flax], nor with chalach [the residue of silk], nor with a wick of iddan [a kind of wool found in a willow between the outer and the inner surface], nor with a wick of midbar [a long grass which is grown for kindling], nor with yerokah on the face of the water [a kind of wooly substance growing on the walls of a boat that has been long on the water. Up to this point, unsuitable wicks; from this point on, unsuitable oils.] neither with tar, nor with wax [Melted tar or wax are not to be put in the lamp to be lit in place of oil; but to make a kind of long wick out of wax, as they were wont to do, is permitted.], nor with the oil of kik [cotton-seed oil. Others understand it as kikayon deyonah, a kind of large-leaved grass, the oil of which is especially thick. The wicks invalidated by the sages — Why? Because the flame gets caught in them; that is, the flame does not enter the wick, but remains on the outside. And the oils invalidated by the sages — because they are not \"pulled\" after the wick. And because the lamp does not burn well, we fear that he will incline the oil towards it and thus be in transgression of kindling. Or, he might leave the lamp and go out, and we rule that the Sabbath lamp is obligatory.], nor with oil for burning [oil of terumah which became unclean. Why is it called \"oil for burning\"? Because it is slated for burning, in that it may not be eaten. And we are speaking of a festival that falls out on Sabbath eve, so that when he lights the lamp while it is still day, he is found to be burning unclean oil of terumah on a festival; and we rule that it is not permitted to burn consecrated foods on a festival, viz. (Exodus 12:10): \"And what is left over of it (the Paschal offering) until morning, in fire shall you burn it,\" which is expounded: \"And what is left over of it until the first morning, until the second morning (the sixteenth of Nissan) arise and burn it\" — for what is left over is not to be burned on the festival. And the same holds true for all other consecrated foods that require burning.], nor with (oil of the) tail, nor with fats. Nachum Hamadi says: One may light with cooked (i.e., melted) fats. and the sages say: whether cooked or uncooked, one may not light with it. [The first tanna also says: \"nor with fats,\" all fats being implied. The difference between the first tanna and the sages is that one of them holds that it is permitted to light with cooked fats when a slight amount of oil is mixed with it, and the other forbids even this. It was not clear to the sages of the Talmud who forbids and who permits. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tWe may not kindle with oil for burning on a festival. [The reason is being given for what was taught in the preceding Mishnah, viz.: Why is it that \"We do not light with oil for burning?\" Because we may not kindle with oil for burning on a festival (consecrated foods not being burned on a festival.)] R. Yishmael says: We may not kindle with resin [the residue of tar] because of the honor of the Sabbath. [Its odor is especially foul; however, because it is soft, it is \"pulled\" after the wick more than tar. Therefore, if not for the honor of the Sabbath, it would be used for kindling.] And the sags permit it with all oils: with sesame oil [Sesame is a thin sweet seed found abundantly in Eretz Yisrael.], with nut oil, with radish oil, with fish oil, with paku'oth [wild cucumber] oil, with resin, and with naphtha [a kind of tar. It is white and has a foul odor.] R. Tarfon says: Only olive oil may be used for kindling. [The halachah is in accordance with the sages, that all oils may be used for kindling except those enumerated above (2:1) and except balsamum oil and white naphtha, for both of these \"fly and burn,\" and we fear that he might leave (the lamp) and go out. And there is yet another reason to forbid it with balsamum oil — a decree, lest he take some of it because of its superior quality. And it is ruled: If one puts oil into a lamp (on the Sabbath), he is liable by reason of \"kindling\"; and if he takes some of it, he is liable by reason of \"extinguishing.\"]",
            "\tWhatever issues from a tree is not used for kindling [i.e., to make a wick of it] except flax, [which is called a \"tree,\" viz. (Joshua 2:6): \"And she hid them among the tree-flax,\" in spite of which we kindle with a wick made from it. And hemp and cotton do not issue from a tree, but are kinds of seed, for which reason they are kindled with. And flax, too, is a kind of seed, and is added (as being permitted) only because it is called a tree, viz.: \"And she hid them among the tree-flax.\"] And whatever issues from a tree does not produce tent-uncleanliness [(If one made a tent of them, and the dead body were under it, it is as any other house and does not require sprinkling and immersion; for the tent itself does not acquire uncleanliness, but only the vessels under it.)] except flax, [in which instance the tent itself becomes unclean, it being written (Numbers 19:18): \"And he shall sprinkle on the tent\"; and it is derived (by identity) \"tent\" - \"tent\" from what is stated in respect to the Tabernacle, viz. (Exodus 40:19): \"And he spread the tent upon the tabernacle.\" And in the tent of the tabernacle there was nothing that issued from a tree but flax, viz. (Ibid. 26:1): \"ten curtains of twisted flax.\"] A wick (made from) a garment, which was twisted, but not yet singed [on a flame for proper kindling (We are speaking of a garment fragment which is exactly three by three fingers)] — R. Eliezer says: It is unclean, and we do not kindle with it. R. Akiva says: It is clean, and we kindle with it. [(\"It is unclean\":) For its having been twisted does not remove it from the status of \"garment,\" its not having been singed. (\"It is clean\":) Its having been twisted removes it from the status of \"garment,\" so that it is as if it lacks three by three fingers; and anything less than that size acquires neither plague-uncleanliness nor dead-body uncleanliness. (\"and we do not kindle with it\":) We are speaking of a festival which falls out on Sabbath eve, where the interdict of muktzeh obtains, and we cannot kindle with pieces of articles (kelim), which were broken on that day, for this would be \"nolad\" (lit., \"born\" on that day). But we can kindle with (complete) articles, for it is permitted to move them. And all hold that one must light most of the wick emerging from the lamp before he removes his hand. Thus, the rationale of R. Eliezer, who says that we do not kindle with it: Its having been twisted does not remove it from the status of (a complete) \"article,\" so that when he lights a little of it, since it is exactly three by three, he renders it a piece of an article (for less than three by three is not an article), and when he lights it with his hands to complete (the requirement of lighting) the majority of what issues forth (from the lamp), he is found to be lighting a piece of an article which was broken on the festival (for when we say that it is permitted to light articles, this is only when they are not touched after they are reduced in size). And R. Akiva says that we may kindle with it. He holds that its having been twisted removes it from the status of \"article.\" And he twisted it on the eve of the festival, for it is not permitted to twist a wick on a festival. Therefore, we do not have a piece of an article which was broken on a festival, and it is permitted to kindle with it. The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.]",
            "\tOne may not perforate the shell of an egg [the harder upper shell containing the egg] and fill it with oil and place it at the mouth of the lamp so that it drip [drop by drop into the lamp — a decree lest he take (oil) from it (on the Sabbath). And since he set it aside for the lamp, he would be liable by reason of \"extinguishing.\"], even if it (the oil container) were earthenware [(to use) which is repulsive, still, they decreed thus. For since the burning wick is not in the vessel containing the oil, he might come to take (oil) from it, thinking that \"extinguishing\" does not obtain in such an instance.] And R. Yehudah permits it, [not decreeing that he might come to take from it; for he sees the oil dripping on the wick beneath.] But if the potter joined it first, it is permitted, for it is (then) one vessel. [The same applies if the owner joined it together with lime or clay on Sabbath eve. There is no need to fear, for because of (the gravity of) Sabbath transgression, he separates himself from it.] One may not fill a dish with oil, place it beside the lamp, and put the (bottom) end of the wick in it, so that it draw [oil to the burning head of the wick.] R. Yehudah permits it. [The Mishnah apprises us of the difference between R. Yehudah and the rabbis (in all three instances): the shell of the egg, the earthenware (container), and the dish. For if it apprised us of the shell of the egg (alone), I might say it is only here that the rabbis forbade it, for since it is not repulsive, he might come to take from it. But earthenware, which is repulsive — perhaps he would concur with R. Yehudah. And if it apprised us of earthenware (alone), I might say it is only here that R. Yehudah permitted it, but in the instance of the egg shell, perhaps he would concur with the rabbis. And if it apprised us of both, I might say it is only in these instances that R. Yehudah permitted it, because the egg shell and the earthenware are in the space of the lamp, above it, nothing intervening, so that there is no need to decree lest he take from it, for he (instinctively) separates himself from it. But with the dish, where there is intervention, the dish being placed at the side of the lamp, so that it is not felt to be part of the lamp, perhaps he would concur that (in such an instance) there is (need for) a decree. And if we were apprised of the dish (alone), I might say that it is only here that the rabbis forbade it, but in the other two instances, perhaps they would concur with R. Yehudah. We must, therefore, be apprised (of all three instances). The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tIf one puts out the lamp because he fears idolators, [such as the Persians, who do not allow the lighting of a fire on their holidays outside their temples], robbers, [so that they not be aware of his presence and attack him], because of an evil spirit [resting upon him — not seeing, giving him relief (Rambam explains: \"an evil spirit\" — a kind of sickness to which those suffering from melancholia are prone. They find relief from it only by sitting in the dark, hidden from men)], or so that a sick man may sleep, he is exempt. [This \"sick man\" is one whose life is in danger; for if he puts it out for a sick man whose life is not in danger, he is liable, this tanna holding that one is liable for a labor not required for its own sake. Likewise, for fear of idolators, robbers, and an evil spirit — all, where life is in danger. And, by right, it should have been stated \"permitted\" (rather than \"exempt\"), but because it was to be taught \"liable\" at the end, it is taught \"exempt\" in the beginning.] (If he puts it out) in regard for the lamp, in regard for the oil, in regard for the wick, he is liable. [And even though the extinguishing is not needed in and of itself, but for the sake of something else — that the wick not burn or that the lamp not split — he is liable, one being liable for a labor that is not needed for its own sake.] R. Yossi exempts in all instances, except (when he puts it out in regard) for the wick, because he thereby chars it. [There is no extinguishing which is needed for its own sake but the extinguishing of charcoals and that of charring the wick, whereby it \"takes\" more readily when he lights it again. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi. (\"because he thereby chars it\":) He intends charring it so that it burn better subsequently.]",
            "\tFor three transgressions women die in childbirth [in time of danger, where there is a risk to life]: for laxity in (observance of the laws of) niddah, (the separation of) challah, and the kindling of the (Sabbath) lamp. [Because they (the last two) are household needs, and she is generally found at home, they are relegated to her.]",
            "\tA man must say three things in his house [(and he must say them gently so that he be heeded)] on Sabbath even before nightfall [i.e., when it is close to nightfall and there is still time in the day to tithe and to make the eruv, but not too much before nightfall, lest they trespass, saying: There is still plenty of time left in the day]: \"Did you tithe?\" [for the Sabbath meal, even an improvised Sabbath meal being regarded as a fixed one for purposes of the tithe], \"Did you make an eruv?\" [the eruvim of (Sabbath) boundaries and courtyards], \"Light the lamp.\" [The first two can be expressed as questions, for they (the activities) might already have been done, but \"Did you light the lamp?\" would not apply, for it is apparent whether it has or has not been lit.] If it is doubtful whether night has or has not fallen [(From the beginning of sunset, so long as one star alone is visible, it is definitely day. So long as two medium-sized stars are seen, it is possibly nightfall. It is called \"ben hashmashoth\" (twilight) and is subject to the (halachic) stringencies of day and the stringencies of night. And once three medium-sized stars are visible, it is definitely night for all purposes)], (If it is doubtful, etc.), then that which is definitely subject to the tithe is not tithed, [for this would be a definite amendment, and even though this is forbidden only because of shvuth (rabbinic \"resting\"), this tanna holds that they decreed for shvuth considerations even ben hashmashoth], and vessels are not immersed [to rid them of their uncleanliness; for this is like \"fixing\" a vessel, and shvuth obtains here, too], and the lamps are not kindled, [all the more, for there is possibility of a Torah transgression here. The (Mishnaic) structure here is: \"This (is forbidden), and, it goes without saying, that.\" And our rabbis have explained: \"and the lamps are not kindled\": We do not tell a gentile to kindle them.] But (what might not have been tithed) is tithed, [and this is not like \"amending,\" for most of the unlearned (amei ha'aretz) do tithe], and an eruv is made [an eruv of courtyards for this (institution) is just a stringency in general, but eruvim of boundaries have Scriptural support], and warm dishes may be stored [in something that does not add heat; for if it does add heat, this is forbidden even while it is still day. The rationale for storing warm dishes ben hashmashoth in something which does not add heat is that even on the Sabbath itself it was forbidden to store warm dishes in something that does not add heat — a decree, lest he find his dish to have cooled and he come to boil it by the fire and be in transgression of cooking on the Sabbath. But there is no reason for such a decree ben hashmashoth, for at that time dishes, in general, are boiling, and there is no reason to fear lest his dish cool off and he come to boil it. Therefore, warm dishes may be stored ben hashmashoth, even though they may not be stored on the Sabbath.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tA kirah [a place made in the ground to accommodate two pots, the fire passing beneath them], which was heated with straw and gevava [wood chips as thin as straw which are raked (govevin) from the field] — a dish may be placed upon it [from Sabbath eve, to leave it there on the Sabbath]. (If it were heated) with gefeth [what is left of olives or sesame after their oil is extracted] or with wood, he may not place it there until [the coals] are scraped out [of the kirah] or until he places ashes [on the coals to cover and cool them — a decree lest he stir the coals on the Sabbath to hasten the cooking. This decree obtains specifically with a dish which has not been entirely cooked, or even with one which has been entirely cooked, but which improves by boiling down. But if the dish has not been cooked at all or it deteriorates by boiling down, it is permitted to leave it on the kirah even if it has not been scraped or covered with ashes, and we do not fear that he might stir the coals, since he removed his mind from it. The same applies to a dish which was entirely cooked but into which he threw a raw limb close to ben hashmashoth. It all becomes like a dish that he had not cooked at all, because he removed his mind from it.] Beth Shammai say: Hot [water may be put on a kirah after it is scraped, for it need not be cooked and there is no need to decree lest he stir the coals], but not a dish, [even if the kirah had been scraped. For it is impossible to scrape all the coals until not a spark is left, and he might come to stir it since he wants the dish to cook.]; and Beth Hillel say: It may be taken, but not returned. [Even hot water, which it is permitted to leave on a kirah which has been scraped and covered with ashes — after he takes it off, it is not to be returned, for it gives the impression that he is cooking on the Sabbath.] And Beth Hillel say: He may also return it, [both hot water or a dish, after he has taken it off. Beth Hillel permitted its being returned only if it were still in his hand, if he did not place it on something else. But if he placed it on the ground or on something else, even Beth Hillel hold that he may not return it, for it is like \"storing\" ab initio on the Sabbath.]",
            "\tA tanur (an oven) which was heated with straw or with gevava [Because a tanur is narrow above and broad below, its heat is more concentrated than that of a kirah, so that even if it were heated with straw or with gevava, we fear that he might stir the coals, for he never removes his mind from it] — a dish may not be placed in it, both within or on the side. A kupach which was heated with straw or gevavah is like a kirayim; with gefeth or wood, like a tanur. [A kupach is made like a kirah, but it is as long as it is broad, so that there is room for only one dish. The fire passes beneath it and its heat is greater than that of a kirah (because a kirah is open above the space of two pots, whereas the kupach is open only the space of one pot), and less than that of a tanur.]",
            "\tAn egg may not be placed [on the Sabbath] at the side of the meicham [a copper kettle in which water is heated on the fire] so that it be \"rolled\" [i.e., so that it is roasted on scarves. [It may not be broken for roasting upon a scarf which was heated in the sun; for we decree (i.e., interdict) toldoth (results) of the sun by reason of toldoth of the fire.] R. Yossi permits it. [He holds that we do not decree toldoth of the sun by reason of toldoth of the fire. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.] And he may not bury it in the sand or in the dust of roads [that has become heated by the sun] in order to roast it. [And in this instance, R. Yossi does not permit it, sand being decreed against by reason of embers. For since they are both forms of \"storing,\" he might come to say: \"What difference does it make whether it be embers or sand?\" Or it may be that R. Yossi decrees lest he move sand from its place. For there might not be enough sand there and he might come to move compact earth, which is a toldah of \"plowing.\"]",
            "\tOnce, the men of Tiberias placed a cold-water pipe into a hot-water conduit [coming from the hot springs of Tiberias, so that the cold water was heated by the hot.] The sages said to them: If on the Sabbath, as hot water heated on the Sabbath, [i.e., the status of the water flowing through that pipe on the Sabbath is that of hot water which was heated on the Sabbath], viz.: It is forbidden to wash in it [even a small limb] and it is [also] forbidden to drink it. [And the status of the water passing through it] on a festival is that of hot water which was heated on a festival. It is forbidden to wash [the entire body] in it, but it is permitted to wash one's face, hands, and feet in it], and it is permitted to drink it. [The halachah is in accordance with the sages. (The men of Tiberias did a turnabout and broke the pipe.)] One may drink from a scraped moliar on the Sabbath. [(\"moliar\":) The gemara explains: Water inside, coals outside. It is a vessel with a small receptacle attached to its outside wall in which coals are put, and the water in the large receptacle. If it were scraped of coals while it was still day, it is permitted to drink of the water in the large receptacle on the Sabbath, even though it is warmed somewhat by the vessel. For it does not add heat, but only preserves it so that the contents not cool.] One may not drink from an antichi, even if it has been scraped. [The antichi is a copper vessel with two surfaces. The water is placed above, and the fire below, between the two surfaces, its heat thereby being long preserved. So that even if the coals are scraped out on Sabbath eve, the water is heated on the Sabbath, for which reason it is forbidden to drink from it on the Sabbath.]",
            "\tA meicham [a copper kettle placed on the fire to heat the water inside] — if it were removed [from the kirah, and it contained hot water], cold water should not be put into it to be heated [by the hot water remaining in the meicham, this being like cooking on the Sabbath], but one can put into it [much (cold) water, so that it all becomes lukewarm], or into a cup, in order to make it lukewarm. [And even though it is a kli-sheni (\"second vessel\"), it is permitted only to make it lukewarm. But it is forbidden to put in a little so that it is heated, this tanna holding that a kli-sheni cooks. And below it is taught: \"But he may put it into the dish,\" which implies that a kli-sheni does not cook. The halachah is that a kli-sheni does not cook.] If one took an ilpass or a kederah (types of pots) [from the fire ben hashmashoth], boiling, he may not put spices into them, but he may put them into the dish or into the tamchui (into which the contents of the pots have been poured), [for a kli-sheni does not cook. (\"tamchui\":) a large tray into which the entire ilpass is poured, and thence apportioned to the dishes.] R. Yehudah says: He may put them into anything, [even a kli-rishon (\"first vessel\")], except one which contains vinegar or fish-brine, [for they cook the spices. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah. And it is specifically spices that it is forbidden to put into a kli-rishon, even after it is removed from the fire. But salt does not cook even in a kli-rishon, except when it is on the fire. Therefore, it is permitted to put salt even into a kli-rishon after it is removed from the fire.]",
            "\tIt is forbidden to place a vessel under a lamp [on Shabbath] to collect [dripping] oil in it. [For oil is muktzeh, and it is forbidden to void a vessel from its designated use, that is, to put it in a place whence it cannot be moved. For this is like fixing a place for it and attaching it there, comparable to a (forbidden) labor. And this vessel, once the oil falls into it, is muktzeh, and it is forbidden to move it.] And if he placed it there while it was still day, it is permitted. And it is forbidden to benefit from it [the oil which dripped from the lamp on Shabbath], for it (the oil) is not from what is muchan (\"ready\"), [having been set aside for kindling]. It is permitted to move a new lamp [which is not maus (\"repulsive\"), and which is fit for use], but not an old one, [which is muktzeh because of maus]. R. Shimon says: All lamps may be moved except a lamp which is burning on Shabbath, [i.e., while it is still burning — a decree lest it be extinguished. According to R. Shimon, there is no muktzeh because of maus or muktzeh because of a prohibition. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon, who permits moving all lamps except a lamp burning (on the Sabbath). For a lamp lit for Sabbath night, even if it went out, is forbidden to be moved that entire Sabbath. For since it is muktzeh ben hashmashoth, it is muktzeh for the entire day. But with other lamps, the halachah is in accordance with him, there being no muktzeh for Shabbath, but muktzeh because of monetary loss, (a category) which R. Shimon concurs (does obtain)]. It is permitted to place a vessel under a lamp [on the Sabbath] to catch sparks [from the flame issuing from the lamp, so that what is beneath it not catch fire. For sparks are without substance, and the vessel is not voided from its designated use thereby.], and he may not place water into it, [even on Sabbath eve], for he thereby \"extinguishes.\" [We decree (that he may not do so on) Sabbath eve by reason of the Sabbath, when, if he did so, he would be liable for extinguishing.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIn what may (foods) be stored, and in what may they not be stored? [If one wishes to remove a pot from the stove on Sabbath eve and store it elsewhere (And the sages have said: We may not store in something that adds heat, but only in something that preserves heat) — what is it that adds heat and is forbidden?] They may not be stored in gefeth [the residue of olives and sesame. When gathered together, it is very hot], or in dung, or in salt, or in lime, or in sand, whether wet (which generates more heat) or dry. (And they may not be stored) in straw, or in the husk of grapes, or in mochim [Every soft thing is called \"mochim,\" e.g., cotton wool, the plucked soft wool of an animal, the tow of worn-out garments], or in grasses, when they are wet [This refers to all of them: straw, husks, mochim, and grasses. \"Wet\" here means wet in and of themselves, not through liquids fallen upon them after they have dried. \"Mochim,\" wet in and of itself, obtains with wool near the tail or with wool between the animal's thighs]; but it is permitted to store in them when they are dry. It is permitted to store in garments, in fruits, in the wings of a dove, in the saw-shavings of carpenters, and in the thin chaff of (beaten) flax. R. Yehudah forbids it with thin [chaff], but permits it with thick. [But with shavings he concurs that it is permitted both with thin and with thick. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah. The reason they forbade storing while it was still day in something that adds heat — a decree, lest he store it in hot ashes and come to stir the coals after dark. And they forbade storing on the Sabbath (even) in something that does not add heat, even though it does not cook — a decree, lest he find his pot to have cooled, and he boil it on a fire on the Sabbath. And ben hashmashoth it is permitted to store in a thing that does not add heat, (Shabbath 34a), there being no need to decree lest he finds his pot to have cooled, and he boil it; for pots, in general, are boiling ben hashmashoth. And Rambam explains \"pots, in general, are boiling ben hashmashoth\" in a manner inconsistent with reason because of mistaken formulations and opposing versions in the gemara before him, where he read: \"Why did they say that it is forbidden to store in a thing that does not add heat after dark? — a decree, lest he store it in hot ashes. And why did they say that it is forbidden to store in a thing that adds heat while it is still day? — a decree lest he come to boil it.\" It is not to be read thus, but: \"Why did they say that it is forbidden to store in a thing that does not add heat after dark? — a decree lest he come to boil it. And it is forbidden to store in a thing that adds heat while it is still day — a decree, lest he store it in hot ashes.\"]",
            "\tIt is permitted to store in sh'lachin [hides. The targum of (Leviticus 1:6): \"And he shall flay\" is \"Veyashlach.\"], and they may be moved (on the Sabbath), [whether or not he stored in them, because they can be reclined upon.] (It is permitted to store) in shearings of wool, and it is forbidden to move them, [for they are set aside for spinning and weaving. And even though he stored in them for the time being, he did not renounce them (for spinning and weaving) entirely, not having designated them specifically for storing; but if he did, he may move them.] What can he [the one who stored his pot] do? [How can he take it out if it is forbidden to move them (the shearings), it being entirely covered by them?] He takes off the cover [of the pot, which has the status of a vessel], and they fall off. [And even though they rest upon it, this does not concern us, it not being regarded as a basis for them, its function being to cover the pot.] R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: He turns the box on its side and takes, lest he take it out and not be able to return it. [When he comes to take (food from the pot), he turns the box (containing the pot) on its side, lest he take the pot, and the shearings on either side fall into the hole (in which the pot is stored), so that if he wishes to return it there, he will not be permitted to move the shearings on either side to fit it back into the hole.] The sages say: He takes it and he returns it. [He takes the pot, and if the shearings on either side do not fall and the hole is not spoiled (for re-storing), he returns the pot to its place; and we do not forbid him to take the pot ab initio lest he spoil the hole. And the sages agree that if the hole were  spoiled, he may not return it. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] If he did not cover it while it was still day, he may not cover it when it gets dark. [For it is forbidden to store on the Sabbath, even in something which does not add heat.] If he covered it, and it became uncovered, he is permitted to re-cover it. One may fill up a kettle and place it [on the Sabbath] under a kar [that he places under his head, even though it is full of mochim or feathers, this not being the usual manner of \"storing\"], or under a keseth, [larger than a kar]."
        ],
        [
            "\tWith what may a beast go out (on the Sabbath)? [For a man is commanded vis-à-vis the resting of his beast on the Sabbath. And something with which the beast is guarded is not considered a burden; and something with which it is not guarded is considered a burden.] A camel goes out with a rein; a na'akah (a longnecked camel) [The gemara states: specifically, a white one, which requires greater guarding], with a chatam [They take an iron ring, pierce the camel's nose, and insert it.]; a Libyan ass [which is especially tough and strong and requires greater guarding than other domestic asses], with an iron rein; a horse, with a sher [a kind of band around its neck, with a ring, through which a rope is inserted and by which the beast is pulled.] And all sher animals [such as hunting dogs and small animals] go out with the sher [around their necks, with the rope fixed in the sher], and are pulled by the sher [i.e., if he wishes, he pulls the beast by the rope in the sher], and they are sprinkled upon (in place) [i.e., as they are, on the animal's neck, if they have incurred dead-body uncleanliness], and they are immersed in place. [The animal is placed in the water to immerse the sher. And even though it is ruled that all articles unique to a beast do not acquire uncleanliness, the sher and its like do acquire uncleanliness and require immersion. Since they are made for a man to lead the animal with, they are regarded as an article made for man's use.]",
            "\tAn ass goes out with a pack-saddle, [which is kept on it the entire day to keep it warm], when it is (already) tied to it on Sabbath eve, [for he knows that the ass requires it for warmth, as people say: \"An ass is cold even in the summertime\" — so that it is not a burden. But it is forbidden to tie the pack-saddle on the ass on Shabbath. For it is impossible to tie it except by bracing oneself against its side, which constitutes (forbidden) use of an animal. And if he transgressed and tied it, it may not go out with it.] Males go out with levuvin [leather tied against their genitals so that they not mount the females.] Ewes go out shechuzoth, [which hold their tails high so that the males can mount them], kevuloth, [which clamp their tails against their legs so that the males not mount them], and kevunoth [They would tie a cloth around lambs on the day they were born so that their wool not become soiled.] Goats go out [with their udders] tied, [sometimes, to dry up their milk by pressing forcibly against them; sometimes, tied as a \"pocket,\" so that the milk not drip to the ground and be lost.] R. Yossi forbids it with all, [regarding them as burdens], except with the kevunoth lambs, [in which instance, keeping their wool from being soiled, it is like an ornament]. R. Yehudah says: Goats go out tied for drying (of the milk), but not for (catching) the milk. [R. Yehudah holds with the first tanna, that it is not a burden. For drying, there is no reason to decree lest it fall and he come to carry it, but for (catching) milk, where it is not tied tight, it is forbidden. We fear that it might fall and that he might come to carry it. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna].",
            "\tAnd with what does it not go out? A camel does not go out with a metoteleth [a piece of rag tied to its tail as a sign or for some other purpose], neither akud [the foreleg tied to the hindleg, so that they not run away] nor ragul [the forefoot bent upwards and tied to the foreleg]; and so with all of the other animals. One may not tie camels to each other and pull [one, all the others following, so that it not appear as if he is leading them to market to sell them]. But he may gather the ropes in his hand and pull, [so long as the ends of the rope not dangle a tefach (a handbreadth) or more from his hand, so that he not appear to be carrying ropes in his hand], and so long as he does not fold them together. [This is not stated in respect to Shabbath, but in respect to kilayim, viz.: If one gathers ropes in his hand, some of flax and some of wool, he should not fold them together, for if he does they are kilayim (a forbidden admixture). His hand is warmed by holding them and this is forbidden.]",
            "\tAn ass does not go out with a pack-saddle if it is not tied to it, not with a zug [a kind of bell hung on the animal's neck to sound when it walks], even though it is stopped up [with rags so that the clapper does not strike to emit a sound; for this gives the impression that he is taking it to sell in the marketplace], nor with a \"ladder\" on its neck [When it had a sore, they would put wood in the form of warp and woof on its neck to prevent it from turning its head to rub it.], nor with the thong on its foot. [If an animal strikes its legs together when walking, they make a thick thong for it in the form of a ring and tie it at the site of the striking.] And chickens do not go out with the strings [made for them as signs, against being exchanged for other chickens], nor with the thongs on their feet. [Their feet were tied together with a short thong, so that they not jump and break vessels.] And male [sheep] do not go out with the ring under their tail. [They would tie a kind of small roller under the tails of the long-tailed sheep to keep them from striking against stones or rocks.] And the ewes do not go out chanunoth. [They would take a sliver from a tree called \"yachnon,\" and place it in their nostrils, so that they would sneeze and thus dislodge the worms in their heads. The males had no need of this, for since they butted each other, the worms would fall out of themselves.] And a calf does not go down with a gimon. [They would place a kind of rubber yoke on a calf's neck to train its head to bending when it was grown], nor a cow with hedgehog skin. [They would tie its udders with this sharp-quilled skin to keep reptiles from sucking them], nor with a thong between its horns [whether for ornament or protection; for any additional \"guarding\" is (considered) a burden.] R. Elazar b. Azaryah's cow would go out with a thong between its horns against the will of the sages. [It was not his, but his neighbor's; but because he did not protest, it was called by his name.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tWith what may a woman go out, and with what may she not go out? She may not go out with strands of wool or strands of flax or bands in her hair. [It (\"her hair\") reverts to all — the strands of wool or flax or the bands with which she plaints her hair.] And she may not immerse in them until she loosens them. [Why may she not go out with them on Shabbath? Because the sages said that during the week, she should not immerse in them until she loosens them. Therefore, on Shabbath she may not go out in them. For her time for mitzvah immersion may occur then (on Shabbath), and she may untie them and come to carry them four cubits in the public domain. (\"until she loosens them\":) Until she unties them slightly so that they are loose and the water enters under them, so that they not intervene in the immersion.], nor with a totefeth [a plate tied on the forehead from ear to ear], nor with a sanbutin [hanging on the totefeth at the temples, and descending until the cheek. Poor women make them from colored materials and rich ones from silver and gold. And because they are special, we are afraid that she may take them off to show them to her friends.] (She may not take them out) when they are not sewn [to her hair-net. But if they are, we do not fear that she will show them. For she will not remove her hair-net in the public domain and reveal her hair.], nor with a kavul [a piece of cloth like a small turban which is tied to the forehead and the plate placed thereon so that it not injure the forehead, and which the woman sometimes wears without the plate] (She may not take it out) to the public domain, [but to a courtyard it is permitted. And all the others mentioned above are forbidden even in a courtyard, it being decreed that she not adorn herself on Shabbath at all, neither in a courtyard nor in a public domain. But they permitted a kavul so as not to forbid all her adornments and render her unattractive to her husband. And the Rambam explains that \"in a public domain\" refers to all of the adornments mentioned in our Mishnah, all being forbidden only by decree, lest she carry them four cubits in the public domain.], nor with \"a city of gold\" [a gold crown in the shape of a city, Jerusalem], nor with a katla [an ornament tightly clasping the neck to give her a \"buxom\" appearance], nor with rings [nose-rings; but they do go out with ear-rings], nor with a ring without a signet [with which to seal letters or any confidential thing. And even though it is an ornament for her, it is forbidden, lest she take it off to show. But if it has a signet, in which instance it is not an ornament for her, we say later that she is liable for a sin-offering, even though she takes it out on her finger by way of wearing it. For sometimes her husband removes it from his finger and gives it to his wife to put away, and she places it on her finger and goes with it, by way of carrying. And the same holds true for a ring without a signet, which is not an ornament for a man. He is liable for a sin-offering even if he takes it out on his finger by way of wearing it. For sometimes his wife gives it to him to take to the jeweler and he takes it out on his finger], nor with a pin which has no hole in it. And if she does go out [with any of those things forbidden thus far by the Mishnah], she is not liable for a sin-offering, [for they are all ornaments, and it is the rabbis who decreed against them, lest she take them off to show.]",
            "\tA man may not go out with a nailed sandal, [made of wood and studded with nails to strengthen it. It is forbidden on Shabbath and on a festival because of a particular occurrence. Once they were hidden in a cave because of a decree (against the Jews), when they heard a din above them. Fearing it to be their foes, they trampled and killed one another with the nails in their sandals. And because this happened on Shabbath, they forbade wearing them on Shabbath, and (also) on a festival, which is, likewise, a day of assembly.] Nor (may he go out) with a single [sandal] when there is no sore on his foot. [Some say, lest they suspect that the second sandal is hidden in his cloak and that he will take it out on Shabbath; others, lest he be laughed at and take off the one on his foot and carry it in his hand. However, when he has a sore on his foot, he is permitted to go out with a single sandal, because his sore \"explains\" the situation.] Nor (may he go out) with tefillin, nor with an amulet [worn as a cure], which is not from an expert [from one who healed three persons. But an amulet taken from one who healed three persons with other amulets, though not this one, is permitted, it being an adornment for a sick man, as one of his garments.] Nor (may he go out) with a coat of mail, nor with an iron helmet, nor with megafayim [iron leggings worn in war. And because they are worn only in war, it is forbidden to wear them on Shabbath.] And if he went out (in them) he is not liable for a sin-offering.",
            "\tA woman may not go out with a needle with a hole [used for sewing, for it is not an ornament. And she is liable for a sin-offering even if she takes it out (stuck) in her garment and not in her hand. For a craftsman who takes something out in the manner of his craft is liable for a sin-offering], nor with a signet-ring, nor with a bakuliar [an article that a woman winds around her head like a ring. It is (considered) a burden (and not a garment) because most women do not go out in it.], nor with a koveleth [a pouch of silver or gold containing perfume to dispel feminine odors], nor with a phial of myrrh. And if she went out (with them), she is liable for a sin-offering. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages exempt her with a koveleth and with a phial of myrrh, [holding them to be adornments. But ab initio she is not permitted to do so, lest she remove them to show. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tA man may not go out (girt with) a sword, a bow, a tris [a triangular shield], an alah [a round shield. Both were of wood.], or a spear. And if he went out (with them), he is liable for a sin-offering. R. Eliezer says: They are ornamental to him. The sages say: They are unbecoming to him, viz. (Isaiah 2:4): \"And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift sword against nation, and they shall not learn war anymore.\" And if they were ornaments, they would not be defunct in the future.] A birith [a garter to hold the stocking so that it not fall down and expose the leg] is clean, [for it is not an ornament]. Neither is it an article for (independent) use, but an article which subserves a different article (a stocking), corresponding to the rings of vessels, which are clean.]; and she may go out with it on Shabbath, [for this is the manner in which it is worn. And it is not to be feared that she might remove it to show, for she would not expose her leg.] K'valim are unclean [There was a family in Jerusalem who took broad strides, and their hymens would rupture. Therefore, they placed a chain between birith and birith, forming k'valim, to narrow their strides and prevent rupturing. The chain serves the person, and not a different article, for which reason it acquires uncleanliness], and she may not go out with them on Shabbath [lest she remove the chain (which was of gold) to show it. For in removing the chain, she did not expose her leg, the birith remaining in its place.]",
            "\tA woman may go out with strands of hair [torn hairs, of which she makes strands and with which she plaits her hair. Or even if she tied them tightly on her temple, she may go out with them, this not being similar to strands of wool and flax (6:1), for water can enter them, and if she needs to immerse, she need not remove them, so that there is no fear that she will carry them (on Shabbath).], whether her own (hair), that of her friend, or that of a beast. [All are needed. For if we were apprised only of her hair (i.e., that only it was permitted), we might think this was so only because it is not unsightly to her (and she would not remove it), but her friend's hair, which is unsightly to her — we might think that we should entertain the fear of her (removing it) and carrying it. And if we were apprised of her hair, we might think this was permitted because, being human hair, it would not be noticed and she would not be mocked, so that it is not to be feared that she might remove it and carry it. But the hair of a beast — perhaps it would be noticed and she would remove it and carry it. (We must, therefore, be apprised otherwise.)] And (she may go out) with a totefeth and a sanbutin (see 6:1) when they are sewn [to her hair-net, in which instance she will not remove them] (and she may go out) with a kavul and a wig to a courtyard. [This (\"to a courtyard\") refers to a kavul and a wig, with which it is forbidden to go out to the public domain. Here we are being apprised that it is permitted to go out with them to a courtyard.], (and she may go out) with the cotton-wool in her ear [to absorb pus], the pad in her sandal [to prevent it from injuring her sole], and with her menstrual pad [to prevent her clothing from being soiled. (This is permitted) even if it is not tied, for if it falls, being offensive, she will not pick it up. But she may not go out with the cotton-wool in her ear or with the pad in her sandal unless it is tied and held fast.] (and she may go out) with pepper (in her mouth against mouth-odor) and with a salt globule [placed in the mouth for tooth ailments], and with anything placed in the mouth so long as she not put it there ab initio on Shabbath. And if it falls, she may not put it back. A false tooth and a gold tooth [a tooth which became discolored and which was plated with gold] — Rebbi permits [going out with it, for she will not come to remove it and show it, not wishing to reveal her blemish], and the sages forbid it. Since it is different from her other teeth, she might be mocked because of it and come to (remove and) carry it. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tShe may go out with a sela [a figured coin] upon the tzinith [a sore on the sole of the foot. A figured coin is tied on it to heal it.] Young girls may go out with strings [Their ears are pierced and ear-rings are not made for them until they are grown. Strings or slivers are placed in the holes so that they not close.], (They may go out) even with the slivers in their ears. [This is for added emphasis. Even though it is not ornamental, it is customary and thus not (considered) a (forbidden) burden.] Arab women [i.e., Jewish women in Arabia] may go out veiled [in the manner of the Arab women, head and faces covered, except for the eyes.] Median women [i.e., Jewish women in Media] may go out prufoth [cloaked — one end hung at the neck; the other, weighted by folding in a stone or a nut, and the sash tied to the fold so that the cloak not fall.] And all (may dress in this fashion), but the sages spoke of the common instance.",
            "\tPorefeth [\"She may bind.\" (The targum of \"clasps\" is \"purfin\")] (the garment) upon a stone, upon a nut, and upon a coin, so long as she does not do so ab initio on Shabbath. [This refers to \"a coin\" alone, that she not bind it ab initio upon a coin, it being forbidden to move it.]",
            "\tAn amputee may go out with his kav. [They make him a kind of artificial leg and hollow it out a little so that he can put his stump in without resting upon it. He is permitted to go out with it, for it is like his shoe.] R. Yossi forbids it, [for it is not an adornment. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.] And if it has a receptacle for pads, it is unclean. [If it is hollowed out enough for thin pads and rags on which to place his stump, it acquires contact-uncleanliness. But if there is room only for his stump alone, without pads, it is not (considered) a receptacle for (acquiring) uncleanliness, but is like a plain piece of wood. For (to acquire uncleanliness) it must be like a sack, where the contents are moved by means of the receptacle, but his stump is not moved by means of the kav.] His supports acquire midras-uncleanliness. [Sometimes a double amputee walks on his thighs and knee-joints, to which leather supports are attached. If he is a zav, his supports acquire midras (\"treading\") uncleanliness, for they are made for the support of his body, and they are rendered av hatumah (\"proto-uncleanliness\")]. He may go out in them on Shabbath [for they are his adornment], and he may enter the azarah (the Temple court) in them. [Even though it was taught that one may not enter the Temple mount in his shoes, these are not (considered) shoes, not being on his foot.] A chair and its supports acquire midras uncleanliness. [Sometimes, an amputee's tendons dry up and shrink to such an extent that he cannot even walk on his knee-joints and, they make for him a kind of low chair that he sits upon. To walk, he supports his hands on small frames, pushes himself forward, and comes to rest on the chair attached to him in back. Leather supports are made for the stumps of his thighs or legs, and when he rests on his arms to push himself forward, he also rests somewhat on his legs.] He may not go out in them on Shabbath. [For since they are (generally) suspended and not set down, sometimes they may come off and he may come to carry them. Some say (he may not go out in them) because he does not have much need of them and they are (considered) a burden.] And he may not enter the azarah with them, [for they are considered shoes.] Ankatmin are clean and one may not go out in them. [(\"Ankatmin\":) a kind of grotesque mask put on to frighten children. Another interpretation: An ass made by clowns and carried on their shoulders. It is not subject to uncleanliness, for it is neither a functional vessel nor an adornment.]",
            "\tSons may go out with \"ties.\" [If a son pines for his father, his father takes the lace of his right shoe and ties it on his son's left hand, and so long as this \"tie\" is upon him, the pining leaves off by segulah (the special property of the tie). It is taught \"sons,\" for daughters do not pine as much for their father as sons do.] And the sons of kings (may go out) with zugin [a kind of small bell. The targum of (Exodus 28:34): \"a gold bell\" is \"zaga dedahava.\"] And all (may do this), but the sages spoke of the common instance.",
            "\tThey may go out with the egg of the chargol [a kind of hopper, viz. (Leviticus 11:22): \"and the chargol after its kind\"). It is hung in the ear for ear-ache.], and with the tooth of a fox [for sleeping purposes. For one who oversleeps, to wake him, they hang upon him the tooth of a live fox. And for one who cannot sleep, to enable him to sleep, they hang upon him the tooth of a dead fox.], and with a nail from the gibbet. [If it is placed on a wound, it removes the swelling. Rambam explains that it is placed on the neck of one with third-degree fever to cure him.] (These are all permitted) when they are used for healing. These are the words of R. Yossi. R. Meir says: Even on a weekday it is forbidden by reason of \"the ways of the Emorites.\" [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir, for it is ruled that anything which is used for healing is not interdicted by reason of \"the ways of the Emorites\" and does not come under (Leviticus 18:3): \"And you shall not walk in their statutes.\"]"
        ],
        [
            "\tA great (i.e., comprehensive) rule was stated in respect to Shabbath: If one forgets the institution of Sabbath [If he thinks there is no Sabbath in the Torah, though he may have known and forgotten], and he performed many labors on many Sabbaths, he is liable for only one sin-offering [for all the Sabbaths that he desecrated, all being regarded as one (act of) unwittingness, viz. (Exodus 31:13): \"My Sabbaths shall you keep,\" the implication being: one \"keeping\" for many Sabbaths (collectively)]. If one knows of the institution of Sabbath [i.e., that it is promulgated in the Torah and that labors are forbidden on it], and he performed many labors on many Sabbaths [through unwittingness in respect to Sabbath, i.e., not knowing that the day was Sabbath], he is liable for [one sin-offering] for each and every Sabbath, it being stated in this regard (Ibid. 16): \"And the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath,\" the implication being: a \"keeping\" for each and every Sabbath; that is, a sin-offering for each Sabbath (individually). And even though it was not known to him in the interim so that it is one act of forgetfulness, we say that the days in between constitute \"knowing.\" For it is impossible that he did not hear in between that that day was Sabbath, but he forgot the labors that he had performed upon it. Therefore, each Sabbath is considered one (distinct) unwittingness.] If one knows that it is Sabbath and he performs many labors on many Sabbaths, he is liable for each av melachah (\"proto-labor\"). If one performs many labors of the type of one labor, he is liable for only one sin-offering. [If one does not know that these labors are forbidden and he performs them several times on several Sabbaths, he is liable for one sin-offering for every av melachah. Even though he repeated them on several Sabbaths, each av of them is considered one act of unwittingness, for it was not known to him in the interim (that the labor was forbidden). And here it cannot be said that the days in between (one Sabbath and the next) constitute \"knowing\" to divide (between one Sabbath and the next). For the days in between give him no knowledge of which labor is forbidden and which permitted, unless he sits before sages and studies the laws of Shabbath. And he is likewise liable if he performs two toldoth (derivatives) of two distinct avoth — For each one, (he is liable) a distinct sin-offering. But if he performed an av and its toldah, or two toldoth of one av, he is liable only for one, as stated below: \"If one performs many labors of the type of one labor, he is liable for only one sin-offering.\" As when he performs two toldoth of the same av, in which instance he is as one who repeats a transgression in one act of forgetfulness. For there are distinct sin-offerings for one act of forgetfulness only with distinct types of transgressions or with distinct Sabbaths vis-à-vis unwittingness in regard to (its being) Sabbath.]",
            "\tThe avoth melachoth are forty less one: sowing, plowing [the reason we are not taught \"plowing\" first, and then \"sowing\" in the normal order, is to be apprised that if the soil were hard, and he plowed and sowed and then plowed again, he is liable for the second plowing by reason of \"plowing.\"], harvesting [One who harvests what has been sown and one who picks (the fruits of) trees is liable by reason of \"harvesting.\"], piling [collecting plants that have been uprooted and piling them in one place], threshing, winnowing [with a winnowing shovel to the wind], separating [chaff with one's hands or with a sieve], grinding, sifting [with a sifter. Even though all of these have one end — to separate the unwanted matter from the food — because all of them obtained in the sanctuary, even though they are similar to one another, each is listed separately. Or, because they do not take place at the same time, but one after the other.], kneading, baking [This did not obtain in the sanctuary, baking obtaining only with a loaf, which does not relate to the work of the sanctuary. But our tanna lists the order (of labors in advance) of (baking) a loaf; and cooking, similar to baking, did obtain in the sanctuary with the dyes for blue, purple, and scarlet yarn. And one who stirs a pot or places a cover upon a pot standing on the fire transgresses by reason of \"cooking.\" And all of the aforementioned labors of the Mishnah: sowing, harvesting, threshing, etc. — all obtained with (the preparation of) dyes for the work of the sanctuary.], shearing wool [ and all of its associated labors obtain with the blue wool in the work of the sanctuary], whitening it [i.e., cleaning it in the river], beating it [with a stick, or else, combing it with a comb], dyeing it, spinning, tightening (threads of the warp), making two loops [by passing two threads into a loop], dividing two threads [i.e., removing the threads of the woof from the warp, or the reverse, for weaving], tying and untying [The trappers of the chilazon, from which the blue dye was made, would tie and untie. For sometimes they would have to take strands from one net to attach to another, untying from the one and tying to the other], sewing two stitches [and tying them; for if he does not tie them, they do not hold. And he is liable twice, by reason of \"tying\" and by reason of \"sewing.\"], tearing in order to sew [Tearing also obtained (in the sanctuary) with the curtains. For if a curtain became moth-eaten with a small round hole, it was necessary to tear the hole upwards and downwards so that the sewing not cause creases.], hunting a deer [All the work of its hide obtains (in the sanctuary) with the hides of the t'chashim], salting it, processing its hide [The gemara questions: Are not salting and processing the same? And it answers: Take out one and insert \"tracing\" (outlines for cutting on the hides), tracing being one of the avoth melachoth], rubbing it [scraping its hair], cutting it [trimming and cutting it for thongs and sandals], writing two letters, erasing in order to write two letters [This obtained in the sanctuary. They would mark the boards in order to match them, writing a letter on the one and on the other; and sometimes, they erred and erased them.], building, razing, extinguishing [the fire under the dye vat], lighting (that fire), striking with the hammer [upon completion of a labor. For an artisan strikes the anvil at the end of the labor. And there is liability for striking with the hammer only at the completion of a labor.], carrying from one domain to another. These are the avoth melachoth — forty less one. [The count in the beginning — \"The avoth melachoth are forty less one\" — even though each labor is mentioned individually, apprises us that even if one performed all the labors in the world on one Sabbath in one (period of) forgetfulness, it is impossible that he be liable for more than forty sin-offerings. For all of the other labors are toldoth of these avoth, so that he might have performed an av and its toldah, for which he would be liable for only one sin-offering.]",
            "\tAnd they stated yet another rule: Anything which merits being secreted [in that it is made for man's use], and the like of which is secreted [i.e., which is of a size fit to be secreted] — if he took it out on Shabbath, he is liable for a sin-offering. And anything which does not merit being secreted, and the like of which is not secreted — if he took it out on Shabbath, only the one who secreted it is liable. [If a man became fond of it and secreted it, he is liable for taking it out if he does so. But if another takes it out, he is not liable, for relative to him it is not a (forbidden) labor.]",
            "\tIf one takes out straw, (the amount for liability is) a cow's mouthful; pea-stalks, a camel's mouthful [This is larger than a cow's mouthful. And one is not liable with a cow's mouthful of pea-stalks, for they are not fit for a cow.]; grain ears, a lamb's mouthful; grasses, a kid's mouthful. [A lamb's mouthful is larger than a kid's mouthful. Therefore, with grain ears, which are not fit for a kid, one is not liable with a kid's mouthful, but there must be the amount of a lamb's mouthful. With grasses, however, since they are fit for both kids and lambs, he is liable even for a kid's mouthful.] Garlic leaves and wet onion leaves, the size of a fig; dry leaves, a kid's mouthful. [Wet leaves, which are fit for human consumption — the size of a fig; for this is the standard amount for all human food on the Sabbath. But not a kid's mouthful, for wet leaves are not fit for a kid.] And they [animal foods] do not combine with one another, for their amounts are different. If one takes out (human) foods the size of a fig, he is liable; and they [all human foods] combine with one another, for their amounts are the same — except for their peels, their pits, their stalks [the ends of the fruits, which are merely like wood], their subin [the shell of wheat which falls off with pounding], their morsan [which remains in the sifter. Rambam explains in the reverse, that morsan is thicker than and inferior to subin]. R. Yehudah says: Except lentil shells, [which do combine], because they are cooked with them (the lentils), [to exclude the outer shells, which fall off when he makes a pile of them. And the shells of beans, when they (the beans) are wet and cooked in their shells — according to R. Yehudah, they combine with the food to the size of a fig. But not dry ones, for they are not eaten with their shells, looking like flies in the dish. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one takes out wine, (the quantity for liability is) what suffices for pouring the cup [of grace, which is a quarter of a revi'ith of raw wine, so that if diluted with three measures of water to one of wine, it stands at a quarter of a log, which is the quantity for the cup of blessing.]; milk, what suffices for quaffing [i.e., what he swallows at one time. And the quantity for the milk of an unclean beast, which is not fit for drinking, is that which suffices for the painting of one eye.]; honey, what suffices for placing upon a kathith [a sore on a horse or an ass produced by carrying burdens. I have found it written that the tip of an inflamed skin sore is called \"pi kathith.\" And even though honey is used primarily for eating, since it is handy for healing purposes and its quantity is minimal, we follow the stringent quantity (vis-à-vis the ruling on carrying)]; oil, what suffices for the anointing of a small limb [of a one-day-old infant, i.e., the small toe]; water, what suffices for the application of collyrium [an eye salve]; and all other liquids, [which are not used for healing purposes], a revi'ith; and all waste-water, [which can be used for kneading clay], a revi'ith. R. Shimon says: All of them, [even wine, milk, and honey], a revi'ith; for all of these quantities [in the Mishnah] were stated only in respect to those who secrete them, [but all others are liable only for a revi'ith. R. Shimon holds that a quantity must be stated for the \"secreter\" himself, and that he is not liable for less than that quantity. For R. Shimon does not hold that with (7:3), \"anything which does not merit being secreted, and the like of which is not secreted,\" the secreter is liable for any amount. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
            "\tIf one takes out a rope, (the quantity for liability is) what suffices to make an \"ear\" for a basket [to hold it by]; reed-rope, what suffices to make a loop for a sifter or a sieve [to hand it by (less than the quantity of an \"ear\" for a basket)]. R. Yehudah says: What suffices to take the measure for a child's shoe; paper [made of grass], what suffices for the writing of the publican's receipt. [Sometimes, one pays the taxes on one side of a river, and the publican gives him a receipt to show the publican on the other side, indicating that the tax has already been paid. He draws two large letters, larger than ours, as a sign.] And one who takes out a publican's receipt is liable. Erased paper [It can no longer be written on. Therefore, it requires a larger amount, viz.], what suffices to stop up the mouth of a small flask of foliatum.",
            "\tSkin, what suffices for the making [i.e., the covering] of an amulet; parchment, what suffices for a small section in the tefillin, viz.: \"Hear, O Israel, etc.\" [For since it is expensive, it is not used for a publican's receipt, but for tefillin or mezuzoth, and he is not liable for a smaller size.]; ink, what suffices for the writing of two letters [to mark two parts of a vessel or two boards, in order to join them]; kohl, what suffices for the painting of one eye. [Those modest women who go veiled, expose only one eye, which they paint.]",
            "\tPaste, what suffices for placing at the top of the shavsheveth. [The trappers would place a small board smeared with paste at the top of the pole to snare birds roosting upon it. A good deal of paste was required for this.]; pitch and sulphur, what suffices to make a nekev [a vessel in which mercury is placed. Its mouth is closed with pitch or sulphur, and a small hole (nekev) is made in the closing for the extraction of the mercury.]; clay-ground, what suffices for the mouth of the gold refiners' smelting pot, [into which the bellows is inserted]. R. Yehudah says: What suffices for a pitput [a foot for the base on which the smelting pot is placed,]; bran-flour, what suffices for placing upon the mouth of the gold refiners' smelting pot. [In a place where there is no charcoal, bran-flour is used as fuel for smelting the gold. Another interpretation: It was the practice to place bran-flour on the mouth of the pot when the gold was poured.]; lime, what suffices for applying to \"the lesser of the daughters.\" [Girls who have reached the age of puberty, but who have not yet menstruated — the daughters of the poor are smeared with lime, which hastens menstruation (and which also acts as a depilatory); the daughters of the rich are smeared with meal; and the daughters of kings with oil of olives which have not yet reached one-third of their growth.] R. Yehudah says: What suffices to make kilkul [placing lime upon the temples (\"tzedain\") to keep the hair down.] R. Nechemiah says: What suffices to make andifi [a little beneath the temples (\"bath tzeda'ah\"). The halachah is neither in accordance with R. Yehudah nor with R. Nechemiah.]",
            "\tAdamah [red clay], what suffices for the seal of martzofin [large sacks used for lading in vessels, which are sealed as letters are.] These are the words of R. Akiva. The sages say: What suffices for the seal of letters. [The amount of the rabbis is less than that of R. Akiva. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] Dung and thin sand, what suffices to fertilize a cabbage stalk. These are the words of R. Akiva. The sages say: What suffices to fertilize leek. [This amount is less than that of a cabbage stalk. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] Thick sand, what suffices for filling a plasterer's trowel; a reed, what suffices for the making of a pen, [which reaches the mid-joints of one's fingers.]; or, if it were thick, [i.e., not fit for writing], or fragmented, what suffices for the cooking of [a fig's size of] \"the easiest of eggs\" [a hen's egg, so called because it is more easily cooked than all other eggs], mixed with oil and placed in a pot [already heated, so that it cooks quickly.]",
            "\tA bone, what suffices to make a spoon. R. Yehudah says: What suffices to make a chaf [the tooth of a key by which a door is opened. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.] Glass, what suffices for scraping the head of the spindle staff, [which is passed over the warp when it is stretched taut and the strands pressed close thereby]; a pebble or a stone, what suffices to fling at a bird. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: What suffices to fling at a beast. [For one does not exert himself to take a pebble to fling at a bird to shoo it away, shouting alone being sufficient.]",
            "\tA shard, what suffices for placing between one board and the next. [When boards, pillars, or beams are arranged on the ground in rows, and there is space between one and the other, it (the shard) is placed underneath so that it not bend.] R. Meir says: What suffices to rake coals with. R. Yossi says: What suffices for receiving a revi'ith (of water). R. Meir said: Even though there is no proof for this, there is an allusion to it [to a shard's significance as a coal-raker], viz. (Isaiah 30:14): \"And there will not be found among its fragments a shard with which to rake fire from a hearth.\" R. Yossi said to him: Does that prove anything? The verse continues: \"and with which to draw water from a geve!\" [A geve is a small hole in which water collects — whence we see that a shard is also of significance as a water-receiver. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tR. Akiva said: Whence is it derived that idolatry renders one who carries it unclean as a niddah (does)? From (Isaiah 30:22): \"Tizrem kemo davah — 'Get out!' will you say to him.\" [Since a verse was used as support above in respect to a shard, another supporting verse is adduced. And \"Tizrem kemo davah\" is near \"And there will not be found among its fragments a shard.\" Or else, since it is to be taught (9:3): \"Whence is it derived that we bathe the circumcision, etc.\", we adduce the other (instances of) \"Whence is it derived,\" which are similar to it.] Just as a niddah renders unclean what she carries, so idolatry renders unclean the one who carries it. [He must wash his clothes, even if he did not touch it, as when it were in a box (that he was carrying) and the like. The rabbis differ with R. Akiva, saying that it renders unclean only by contact, as sheretz does. The halachah is in accordance with the sages. (\"Tizrem kemo davah\":) That is, let them (idolatrous objects) be in your eyes as zarim (strangers), as \"davah,\" a niddah, viz. (Leviticus 15:33): \"Vehadavah benidathah.\"]",
            "\tWhence is it derived that a ship is clean [i.e., that it does not acquire uncleanliness]? From (Proverbs 30:19): \"the way of a ship in the heart of the sea.\" [Is it not obvious that a ship is in the heart of the sea? (i.e., What are we being taught by this?) We are being apprised that the ship is like the sea, i.e., just as the sea is clean, so a ship is clean — even one of earthenware; even one that was laden on dry land and lowered into the sea.] Whence is it derived that in a garden bed six by six cubits, five (different varieties of) seeds may be sown? Four on the four sides of the bed, and one in the middle? From (Isaiah 61:11): \"For as the earth brings forth her growth, and as a garden sprouts its seeds.\" It is not written \"its seed,\" but \"its seeds.\" [(\"five (different varieties of) seeds\":) so that there be enough separation between them that they not constitute a (forbidden) admixture (kilayim). (\"Four on the four sides of the bed\":) He fills every side close to the corner, and in the middle he sows only one kernel, so that it is three cubits distant from what is sown on every side. For the \"nurturing\" distance between one seed and another is a cubit and a half. And even though near the corners in each direction the seeds are close to each other, not being three cubits removed, and being nourished by one another, there is no reason for apprehension here, for it was kilayim (the forbidden admixture) itself that Scripture was concerned with, and not with the nourishment factor. As it was taught: If there were a fence between them, one can sow next to the fence on one side; and the other, next to the fence on the other, even though they are mutually nourished from beneath. And here (in our instance) there is a clear separation; for one side is sown north-south and the other, east-west. But between the middle seed to those at the sides, there is no clear separation, and if they were close, they would constitute an admixture, for which reason they require distancing to the extent of nourishing. (\"For as the earth brings forth her growth, and as a garden sprouts its seeds\":) \"brings forth\" — one; \"her growth\" — one; \"its seeds\" — two; \"sprouts\" — one; all together — five. (That it be in an area of six cubits by) six cubits is not derived from the verse; but the rabbis know that with five varieties of seed in such an area, the corners are not nourished by the middle nor the middle by the corners, the nourishment distance of each seed being a cubit and a half. So that when Scripture intimates five seeds, it is understood to be in an area of six by six cubits. And in Tractate Kilyaim I have explained the halachoth of garden beds in detail. Here I have been brief.]",
            "\tWhence is it derived that a woman who exudes semen on the third day (after cohabitation) is unclean? [For on the third day the semen has not yet putrefied and is still viable, so that it is called \"semen (shichvath zera) which is fit to be sowed\" (haraui lehazria)]. From(Exodus 19:15): \"Be ready in three days. (Do not come near a woman.\") [The Torah desired that there be no semen uncleanliness at the giving of the Law, for which reason it separated them for three days. And it was not feared that they might exude semen on the fourth day after separation, for (by that time) it putrefies and is not fit for sowing. The halachah is that a woman who exudes semen on the third day is clean, and our Mishnah is a mistaken one, the correct reading being: \"Whence is it derived that a woman who exudes semen on the third day is clean? From: \"Be ready in three days,\" this referring to the third day of separation, on which day the Torah was given. Or else, it is not mistaken, but represents the view of the rabbis of R. Eliezer b. Azaryah, who hold that a woman who exudes semen on the third day is unclean. But the halachah is not in accordance with them.] Whence is it derived that the circumcision is bathed on the third day (after circumcision) if it falls on a Sabbath? [Even with hot water which was heated on the Sabbath. For even on the third day his life is in danger, and, it goes without saying, on the first and second days. The hot water strengthens and heals the infant's body.] From (Genesis 34:25): \"And it was on the third day (after circumcision) when they were in pain, etc.\" Whence is it derived that they would tie a tongue of crimson to the head of the scapegoat? From (Isaiah 1:18): \"Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as wool.\" [They would tie a kind of tongue of red wool, half to the head of the scapegoat and half to the peak from which it was cast. When it was cast down, that tongue would turn white, and they would know that their sins had been atoned.]",
            "\tWhence is it derived that anointing is like drinking on Yom Kippur? [Not that it is actually like drinking for kareth liability, but that it is forbidden.] Even though there is no proof for it, it is intimated in (Psalms 109:18): \"And it came like water in his midst and like oil in his bones.\"",
            "\tIf one takes out wood, (the quantity for liability is) what suffices for the cooking of \"an easy egg\" [a hen's egg, which is easier to cook than all other eggs. And it is not necessary to cook all of it, but only a fig's size of it, mixed with oil and placed in a (pre-heated) pot.]; seasonings, what suffices for the seasoning of \"an easy egg.\" And they [all spices] combine with each other. Nut shells, pomegranate shells, isatis [which produces a blue dye], and puah [grass roots producing a red dye], what suffices for the dying of the small cloth on [the top of] the net, [it being customary to place a piece of cloth there]. Alum [a kind of phosphorescent soil], borith [a kind of plant with detergent properties], kimonia [a grass whose powder is used as a hand deodorant. In the language of the Talmud, it is called \"shlof-dotz,\" and in Arabic, \"alkalai.\"], eshlag, what suffices for washing the small cloth on the net. R. Yehudah says: What suffices for passing over a stain [on a garment. If it is not certain whether it is or is not niddah blood, seven things are passed over it to check it, these four among them. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tPilpeleth [effective as a mouth deodorant. This is not our pilpel (pepper)], any amount; itran [used for healing migraine], any amount. Spices and metals, [of which small goads can be made], any amount. (Particles) of the stones of the altar, of the earth of the altar, the mould (mekek) of books, and the mould of their covers [\"mekek,\" decay, as in (Zechariah 14:12): \"hamek besaro\" (\"His flesh will decay\")], any amount, for they are secreted. [(All things of holiness must be secreted.)] R. Yehudah says: Also (liable is) one who takes out any amount of the appurtenances of idolatry, viz. (Deuteronomy 13:18): \"Let there adhere to your hand naught of the spoil\" (of idolatry), [whence it is seen that Scripture accorded it significance in forbidding it; and he effects great amendment in removing idolatry from his house. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tIf one takes out a spice-peddler's box, even if there are many varieties in it, he is liable for only one sin-offering, [it being one act of carrying.] Garden seed, less than a fig. [Even though the quantity for all foods is the size of a fig — with these, since they are to be sown, there is liability even for less than the size of a fig.] R. Yehudah b. Betheira says (that there is liability with) five (garden seeds.) [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah b. Betheira.] Cucumber seed, two. Gourd seed, two. Egyptian bean seed, two. [Cucumber seed is superior to most garden seed, and so gourd seed and Egyptian bean seed.] A live hopper, any size [For it is secreted for children to play with]; a dead one, the size of a fig [as with all foods]. Tziporeth k'ramim [a bird found among young palms], whether alive or dead, any size, for it is used for healing [of the mind]. R. Yehudah says: Also one who takes out a live unclean hopper (is liable) for any size, for it is secreted for children to play with. [And the first tanna holds that an unclean hopper is not secreted for a child, for he might find it and eat it. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one secretes seed (to sow) or (something) as a sample [to show others so that they buy from him], or for healing purposes [and he forgot on Shabbath why he had secreted it] and he took it out on Shabbath [with no particular intent], he is liable for any amount, [for he took it out subject to his first intent, in which he accorded it significance]; and every other person is liable only for its [stipulated] quantity. If he [the one who secreted less than its quantity] then took it back [i.e., If  he decided not to sow it and took it back], he is liable only for its (stipulated) quantity. [He is not liable for taking it back unless it is of the full stipulated quantity, for since he decided not to sow it, his (original) intent was voided, and he is like any other person.]",
            "\tIf one takes out food and places it on the lintel, [which is a karmelith, as when it is three to nine cubits high and four cubits wide], whether he or another then took it out, he is not liable, for he did not perform his labor at one time. [He did not perform akirah in the private domain and hanachah in the public domain, a \"place of liability,\" which would make his labor a complete one — but he performed akirah in a \"place of liability,\" and hanachah in a karmelith, for which hanachah he is not liable, and then he performed akirah in the karmelith, which is not a \"place of liability,\" and hanachah in the public domain, so that akirah from a place of liability and hanachah in a place of liability was not performed at one time (i.e., in the same act).] If he placed a basket on the outer doorstep [facing the public domain], even if most of the fruits are outside (i.e., in the public domain), he is not liable until he takes out [i.e., until he takes out in the beginning] the entire basket. And this is so only if the basket is full of cucumbers and gourds, which are long, so that some of them are still inside; but if it were full of mustard plants, where many of them are entirely outside, it is considered as if he took out the entire basket and he is liable.]",
            "\tIf one takes out (something on Shabbath), whether in his right hand or his left hand, in his bosom, or on his shoulder, he is liable, for this was the (manner of) carrying of the sons of Kehath [viz. (Numbers 7:9): \"On the shoulder they bore.\" And right hand, left hand, or bosom are customary ways of carrying.] (If he takes something out) on top of his hand, on his foot, in his mouth, in his elbow, in his ear, in his hair, or in his pundah [a hollow belt] with its mouth downwards [This is not the normal way of carrying; but mouth upwards is. Another interpretation: \"afundatho,\" a garment worn close to the skin to absorb sweat. They would make pockets in it, and when it was turned upside down, the mouth of the pocket faced downwards.], between his pundah and his garment, in the [bottom] edge of his garment, in his shoe, or in his sandal, he is not liable, for this is not the customary way of carrying.",
            "\tIf one intended carrying out (an object) in front of him, and it ended up in back of him, he is not liable, [for he intended greater protection (of the object) and ended up with lesser protection.] (If he intended carrying it out) in back of him, and it ended up in front of him, he is liable. [For he intended (even) lesser protection and ended up with greater protection.] In truth it was said: A woman who wears a sinar [a small garment worn for modesty] is liable. [If she hangs something on it to take out, and it ends up on the other side, she is liable], for it is customary for it to do so, [and she knew this in the beginning.] The same applies to the receivers of missives [of the king. The couriers who carry them place them in hollow reed-like wooden containers, which they place on their necks and which, as they are aware, are wont to turn back and forth. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tIf one takes a loaf out to the public domain, he is liable. If two took it out, they are not liable. [This is derived from (Leviticus 4:27): \"in doing it, one of the mitzvoth of the L rd which may not be done\" — one who does all of it, and not one who does part of it.] If one could not take it out, and two took it out, they are liable. R. Shimon exempts them, [holding that even if one could not do it, if two did it, they are not liable. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.] If one takes out food less than the (stipulated) quantity in a vessel, he is not liable even for the vessel, for the vessel is \"subservient\" to the food. (If one takes out) a living person in a bed, he is not liable even for the bed, for the bed is subservient to the person. [He is not liable for taking out the living person if he is not bound, for a living person \"carries\" himself. And this is so only with a human being, but not with beast, animal, or bird, for they are regarded as \"bound.\"] Likewise, (if one took out) an olive-size of a dead body, an olive-size of carrion, or a lentil-size of sheretz, he is liable. [For since an olive-size of a dead body causes uncleanliness, taking it out is an act of importance, viz., to rescue oneself from uncleanliness. The same applies to an olive-size of carrion and a lentil-size of sheretz, this being their stipulated quantity for uncleanliness.] R. Shimon exempts (from liability) [even carrying out a dead body, this being \"a labor which is not needed for itself,\" any act whose purpose is only to remove something, being subsumed in this formulation in that it is not a labor of \"design.\" The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
            "\tIf one removes his nails, one (hand removing) from the other, or with his teeth; likewise, his moustache; likewise, his beard. Similarly, if one plaits (godeleth) [her hair. The targum of (Exodus 28:14): \"avothoth\" (\"wreathed\") is \"gedilatha\"], or paints [her eyes with kohl], or if she parts her hair [in the middle between the temples] — R. Eliezer rules (that one who does so is) liable [for a sin-offering: painting the eyes, by reason of \"writing\"; plaiting and parting, by reason of \"building\"], and the sages forbid it by reason of \"shvuth\" (\"resting,\" a rabbinic ordinance). [For they hold that these are not the customary ways of writing and building. The halachah is in accordance with the sages. And it is only one who removes his nails and his hair with his hands that the rabbis exempt from a sin-offering and from stoning. But if one does so with an instrument, they concur that he is liable for a sin-offering (when he removes two hairs). And if one pulls out the hair of his head, even with his hand, he is liable. And if most of a nail came loose, or most of a hair were torn, causing distress, it may be removed by hand ab initio.] If one tears off (a plant) from a flower pot with a hole, he is liable, [it being regarded as rooted to the ground in that it is \"nourished\" from the ground through the hole, absorbing the moisture of the soil (even if the hole is in the side.) The required size of the hole (in this connection) is that of a small root; and if it has no hole, he is not liable. R. Shimon exempts him in either case, [it not being considered as rooted to the ground to make him liable for stoning. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf one throws (an object) from the private domain [reshuth hayachid] to the public domain [reshuth harabim] or from the public domain to the private domain, he is liable. [The private domain is a place surrounded by four walls ten cubits high, with a space between them of four by four cubits or more, even several miles, as in the instance of a district surrounded by a wall, with its doors closed at night. And alleyways with three walls, and a lechi (a symbolic enclosure) on the fourth side; a mound ten cubits high and four wide; a hole, ten deep and four wide; and even vessels, such as ships and wooden towers and the like — if they are four by four and ten in height, they are all a private domain. And the atmosphere of a private domain is (regarded as) a private domain, until the heavens. And the thickness of the walls of a private domain is regarded as that domain. And a public domain — marketplaces, thoroughfares, deserts and the roads leading to them, this, on condition that the road be sixteen cubits wide, unroofed, and (in the view of some) that six hundred thousand cross it everyday, as in the instance of the flags of the desert. And the atmosphere of the public domain is regarded as that domain only up to a height of ten cubits. Above that in the public domain it is regarded as makom p'tur (\"a place of exemption\"). And a place lacking four by four, higher than three cubits is a makom p'tur. Even thorns, thistles, and dung in a public domain, higher than three and lacking four by four is a makom p'tur. Likewise, a place surrounded by walls and lacking four by four, or a hole lacking four by four, from a depth of three cubits until the tehom (the interior of the earth) is a makom p'tur. And a place surrounded by four walls from three to ten cubits high, four by four or more in width, or a mound which is four by four or more, from three to ten cubits high, or a hole four by four, from three to ten cubits deep, or a mavui (an alleyway) closed off on three sides and lacking a lechi or a beam on the third side, and the sea and a valley — all of these are a \"karmelith\"; that is, \"kemo almanah\" (\"like a widow\"), neither a virgin nor married. Similarly, this domain is neither private nor public. And the atmosphere of a karmelith is regarded as the karmelith until a height of ten, beyond which it is a makom p'tur. If one takes something out from a private domain to a public domain or brings something in from a public domain to a private domain, he is liable for a sin-offering. From a private domain to a karmelith or from a public domain to a karmelith or from a karmelith to either, he is exempt but it is forbidden. From a private domain or from a public domain to a makom p'tur or from a makom p'tur to either, it is permitted ab initio, and, it goes without saying that it is permitted from a karmelith to a makom p'tur or from a makom p'tur to a karmelith. And if one carries from the beginning of four cubits to the end in a public domain he is liable for a sin-offering. In a karmelith, he is exempt but it is forbidden. In a private domain and in a makom p'tur, it is permitted ab initio to move and carry objects in the entire domain, even if it were several miles.] (If one throws) from one private domain to another with a public domain intervening, R. Akiva rules \"liable,\" [holding that when the object passed through the atmosphere of the public domain within ten cubits (from the ground) it is as if it landed there.], and the sages rule \"not liable.\" [They hold that when the object is \"caught\" within ten cubits (from the ground) in the atmosphere of the public domain it is not as if it has landed there. But above ten, which is a makom p'tur, all agree that he is not liable. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tHow so? [The rabbis say this.] Two gezuztraoth [boards projecting from the upper wall outwards over the public domain. The gezuztraoth themselves are private domains. And when they are one opposite the other on either side of the public domain, one who hands and throws from one to the other is exempt, for we do not find throwing and handing in the work of the sanctuary from one private domain to another with a public domain intervening.] (two gezuztraoth) one opposite the other in the public domain — if one hands or throws from one to the other, he is not liable. If they were both on one level [along the length of the public domain, the public domain intervening], the hander is liable and the thrower is not, [since he is higher than ten cubits, and we do not find throwing from one private domain to another via a public domain in the sanctuary. The hander, however, is liable, even though he hands (over the object) above ten cubits. For we find such \"handing\" in the sanctuary, from one private domain to another with a public domain intervening.] For thus was the work of the Levites. [They would hand from one to the other above ten cubits with a public domain intervening. How so?] Two wagons, one after the other in the public domain, and [those who took apart the tabernacle] would hand from one to the other. [They would hand to those on the wagons closest them, and they, in turn, would hand to those before them; and each of the wagons was a private domain.]; but they would not throw, [the boards not being thrown because of their weight.] The chuliah of the hole [the sand dug out of the hole. They would place it around the hole as a kind of encircling wall. We are here apprised that the hole and its chuliah combine to ten. We are taught \"hole\" for depth, and \"rock\" for height], and the rock, which are ten high and four wide — if one takes (something) from them [and places it in the public domain], or if one [takes something from the public domain and] places it on them, he is liable. If it is less than that, he is exempt.",
            "\tIf one throws (something) four cubits at a wall [from the beginning of four cubits to the end, and it landed on a wall abutting the public domain] — above ten cubits, it is as if he throws it in the air. [e.g., if it were a fig-cake and it stuck to the wall above ten cubits in the atmosphere of the public domain, he is not liable, for anything higher than ten cubits in the public domain is a makom p'tur.]; below ten cubits, it is as if he throws it on the ground [from the beginning of four to the end of four in the public domain. He is liable even if there are only four cubits exactly from the place of the picking up of the object to the wall. We do not say that the thickness of the fig-cake detracts from the four cubits so that \"from the beginning of four to the end of four\" does not obtain; for since he does not cancel the fig-cake to the wall, nothing is detracted by its thickness.] If he throws it four cubits on the ground, he is liable. If he threw it inside four cubits, and it rolled outside, he is exempt, [for he did not intend a throwing of liability]. (If he threw it) outside four cubits and it rolled inside, he is liable; [that is, when it rested somewhat outside four cubits before rolling back.]",
            "\tIf one throws (something) four cubits [from the beginning of four to the end of four] on the sea, he is not liable, [for it is a karmelith]. If there is a rekak [a miry, clayey collection] of water [not high above the ground] in the midst of a public thoroughfare — if someone throws four cubits within it, he is liable. And how much is a rekak of water? [How deep must it be to be a public domain and not a karmelith]? Less than ten cubits. A rekak of water in the midst of a public thoroughfare — if someone throws four cubits within it, he is liable. [The tanna repeats it to apprise us that even if the rekak were four wide, since it is less than ten deep, it is regarded as the public domain. And he also repeats \"in the midst of a public thoroughfare\" to apprise us that even if many walk through it only under constraint, walking under constraint is called \"walking.\"]",
            "\tIf one throws from the sea to the shore [from a karmelith to a public domain]; from the shore to the sea; from the sea to a ship [from a karmelith to a private domain]; from one ship to another, he is exempt. If ships are tied to one another, it is permitted to move things from one to the other. [If they belong to two different persons, it is permitted to move things from one to the other by means of an eiruv, in that they are like two courtyards.] If they are not tied, even if they are mukafoth [adjoining, as in (Chullin 46b): \"ein makifin bebuei\"], it is not permitted to move things from one to the other. [For if they become separated, a karmelith intervenes and the eiruv is voided.]",
            "\tIf one throws and remembered after it left his hand — if another caught it, if a dog caught it, or if it were burned, he is not liable. [If he throws a stone on Shabbath unwittingly and remembers that it is Shabbath after it leaves his hand, before it comes to rest — even if another did not catch it, but it landed normally, he is not liable. For thus is it taught at the end: \"until the beginning and the end be unwitting\"; but in this instance, the beginning was unwitting and the end witting, since he remembered that it was Shabbath before it landed. The Mishnah is to be understood thus: \"If one throws, and he remembered after it left his hand; or else, if he did not remember, but another caught it … he is not liable, for two who perform (one labor) are not liable. But if it landed, he is liable. When is this so? If he forgot again. But if he did not forget again, he is not liable, for all who are liable, etc.\"] If he threw it to cause a wound, whether in a man or in a beast, and he remembered before the wound was caused, he is not liable. This is the rule [(also including one who carries something from place to place. If he picks it up unwittingly and remembers that it is Shabbath before he puts it down, he is not liable)]: all who are liable for a sin-offering are not liable until the beginning and the end be unwitting. If the beginning were unwitting and the end witting, or the beginning witting and the end unwitting, they are not liable — until the beginning and the end be unwitting."
        ],
        [
            "\tBuilding [one of the avoth melachoth] — How much must one build in order to be liable? Building, any amount. And mesateth [squaring the stone, or smoothing it and finishing it, all according to the custom of the place — a toldah of makeh bepatish,], and makeh bepatish (striking with the hammer) [the end labor of the stone quarrier. After he quarries and separates the stone from the mountain, he strikes a heavy blow upon it with the hammer and it falls apart. All end-labor on Shabbath is a toldah of makeh bepatish.], and (striking) with an adze (ma'atzad), and boring a hole (kodeach), any amount. [This refers to all of them: mesateth, makeh bepatish uvema'atzad, and hakodeach.] This is the rule: If one performs a labor and his labor \"stands\" on Shabbath, [requiring no addition], he is liable. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: Also one who strikes on the anvil with the mallet while working is liable, for he thereby amends the work. [Even though he does not strike upon the work itself but upon the anvil, he amends the work. For thus did the flatteners of the foils of the tabernacle do. They would strike the foil three times and the anvil once to smooth the mallet so that it not split the thin foil. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.]",
            "\tPlowing, any amount. Menakesh [Weeding; another interpretation, digging around the roots of plants, a labor similar to plowing], mekarsem [cutting dried branches from a tree to amend it], mezared [cutting off moist shoots of the current year. Sometimes they are profuse and weaken the tree, and so, are cut.] — he is liable for any amount. If one picks wood — if to amend [the tree or the ground (cutting it from what it is attached to)], any amount; if to burn, what suffices to cook \"an easy egg\" [the amount of a fig of a hen's egg, which cooks more easily than other eggs.] If one picks grass — if to amend, any amount; if to (feed) an animal, what suffices to fill the mouth of a kid.",
            "\tIf one writes two letters, whether with his right hand or with his left hand, [if he is ambidextrous, (for with others, writing with the left hand is not considered writing)], whether of one variety [e.g., both aleph] or of two [e.g., aleph, beth], whether of two samemaniyoth [one in ink; the other in sikra (a red dye). Another version: \"two simaniyoth,\" i.e., two signs (simanim), as when aleph is written to signify \"one,\" and beth to signify \"two.\"], in any tongue [or in the script of any nation], he is liable. R. Yossi said: They made him liable for two letters only by reason of \"marking,\" for thus would they do with the boards of the tabernacle to know which their match was [after dismantling them, so that they not lose the order in setting them up again. R. Yossi comes to say that even if he did not write (any letters) but just made two marks as a sign he is liable. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.] Rebbi said: We find a small name in a big name: Shem in Shimon and Shmuel; Noach in Nachor; Dan in Daniel; Gad in Gadiel. [That is, even though the work was not completed, for he intended writing a large word and wrote just part of it — since that part is a word in itself and meaningful elsewhere, he is liable. And this is the halachah.]",
            "\tIf one writes two letters in one (period of) forgetfulness, he is liable. If he wrote with ink, with sam (a kind of pigment), with sikra (a red dye), with komos [a kind of black earth; another interpretation, tree resin], with kankantum (vitriol), or with anything that leaves an impression — (If he wrote) on two corner walls [one, east; the other, north, next to each other], or on two ledger tablets, [Even though they are not written on one tablet], if they are read together [as they are written, on the two adjoining edges of the tablets], he is liable. If one writes on his flesh [with ink], he is liable. If one tattoos his flesh [with iron], R. Eliezer rules \"liable,\" and R. Yehoshua, \"not liable\" [even if he drew blood, for this is not the way of writing. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehoshua.]",
            "\tIf one wrote with liquids [that leave a dark impression, such as berry extract and the like], with fruit juice [of all other fruits], with the dust of the roads [If he traced letters with his fingers on the sand or dust of the roads], with the dust of scribes [the residue of the inkstand of the scribe], or with any other thing that does not last, he is not liable. (If he wrote) with the back of his hand [i.e., if he held the pen in his fingers and turned his hand over and wrote]; with his foot; with his mouth; with his elbow — (If he wrote) one letter near [a letter] which was (already) written, [i.e., if he paired it with one and completed it to two]; if he wrote on top of what was written [i.e., if he passed the pen over letters already written and \"renewed\" them]; if he intended to write a cheth and wrote two zaynin [(If the roof of the cheth is not seen, but only the two legs, it looks like two zaynin.)]; one on the ground and one on the ceiling; if he wrote on two [non-adjoining] walls of the house; on two tablets of a ledger so that they could not be read together, he is not liable. [That is, if he wrote one letter on one, and another on the other, so that they could not be placed together without cutting out what intervened. First we are taught about non-adjoining walls and then about the ledger tablets, viz.: \"Not only (is there no liability for) the first, but even (for) the second.\"] If he wrote one letter notarikon [i.e., if he placed a dot over it so that all understand from that letter a complete word, e.g.: \"kof\" — \"korban\"; \"mem\" — \"ma'aser\"; \"tav\" — \"terumah\"], R. Yehoshua b. Betheira rules \"liable\" [Since all understand an entire word from that letter, it is as if he wrote all the letters of that word.], and the sages rule: \"not liable,\" [for he did not write two letters. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tIf one writes two letters in two (periods) of forgetfulness [After he wrote one letter unwittingly, it became known to him that he had transgressed. He then forgot again and he wrote a second letter unwittingly beside it], one in the morning and one towards evening [Since there was time in the middle for him to know, it is like two periods of forgetfulness] — R. Gamliel rules \"liable,\" [holding that there is no \"knowing\" for half an amount (i.e., one letter) to divide (the writing) that the second half not be joined to it]; and the rabbis rule \"not liable,\" [holding that the \"knowing\" between the two half amounts divides them, so that it is not considered as if there were two half-amounts in one period of forgetfulness. The halachah is in accordance with the sages."
        ],
        [
            "\tR. Eliezer says: If one weaves three strands in the beginning, and one on what is woven, he is liable. [If this is the beginning of a garment, he is not liable until he weaves three strands. And if he adds to what is woven, the quantity is one, for it combines with the rest.] The sages say: Both in the beginning and in the end, the amount is two strands.",
            "\tIf one places two threads of the warp on the cross-beam on the nirin [The gemara explains that he affixes twice every strand of the warp on the cross-beam, and the third time, he affixes it to the strand on the shaft], or on a keiros [a sheet woven of palm bast], a sifter, a sieve, or a basket, he is liable. And one who sews two stitches, and one who tears in order to sew two stitches [is liable].",
            "\tIf one rends his garment in his wrath, or over his dead one (he is not liable). [It is only over a dead one that he is not obligated to rend over that he is mekalkel (\"destroying\"), and exempt; but for one he is obligated to rend over, he is metaken (\"amending\"), and liable.]; and all who are mekalkel are exempt. [This Mishnah is rejected, and the halachah is that one who rends in his wrath is liable. For even though he is mekalkel vis-à-vis the garment, he is metaken vis-à-vis his yetzer (his emotions) and he sets his mind at rest thereby.] and if one is mekalkel in order to be metaken, the amount (for liability) is the same as that for metaken.",
            "\tThe size (for liability) for whitening [wool], beating, dyeing, and spinning, [which are all avoth melachoth] is [to spin from that wool a strand whose length is] double the full breadth of a sit. [A sit is the full-breadth distance between the middle finger and the index finger. And double this distance is \"double a sit.\" And the distance between the thumb and the index finger is also double the breadth of a sit, for it is double the distance between the middle finger and the index finger.] If one weaves two strands, its size (for liability) [in the breadth of the garment] is a full sit. [For even if he did not weave them along the full breadth of the garment, he is liable.]",
            "\tR. Yehudah says: If one hunts a bird into a turret [of wood, he is liable, this being considered \"being caught,\" but if he hunts it into a house, it is not considered caught thereby], and (if he hunts) a deer into a house, he is liable. [A deer is considered caught if it is gotten into a house and the door locked, but if it is gotten into a garden or a courtyard, it is not regarded as caught.] And the sages say: A bird into a turret, and a deer into a house, a courtyard, or a bivar [a walled enclosure for animals.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: Not every bivar is the same. This is the rule: If it lacks \"being caught,\" [i.e., if it is difficult for him to catch it there, as when he cannot do so in one bend], he is exempt; and if it does not lack \"being caught,\" he is liable. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel, who explains the ruling of the rabbis.]",
            "\tIf a deer entered [of itself] into a house, and one locked (the door) on it, he is liable [it being considered caught thereby]. If two locked it, they are exempt, [this being considered \"two who did one labor.\"] If one could not lock it (by himself), and two locked it, they are liable. [Since two are required to lock it, each one is performing a labor, for without him it could not be done.] R. Shimon exempts (them). [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
            "\tIf one sat in the doorway without filling it and the second sat down and filled it, the second is liable, [for it is he who trapped it.] If the first sat in the doorway and filled it, and the second came and sat down beside him, even if the first got up and went away, he is liable and the second is exempt. To what may this be compared, [(the deer's having been trapped by the first)]? To one's locking his house to guard it, (and not to trap), and a deer [which had already been caught] being found to be guarded within it. Here, too, even though the first arose, he (the second) is only like one guarding a deer that he had yesterday. \"And the second is exempt\" in our Mishnah is to be understood as exempt and permitted (ab initio).]"
        ],
        [
            "\tThe eight sheratzim (creeping things) mentioned in the Torah [(Leviticus 11:29-30): \"the weasel, the mouse, etc.\"] — if one hunts them [he is liable, for there are in their species those which are hunted], and one who wounds them is liable, [for they have skin, and the discoloring is permanent, and he is liable by reason of mefarek (\"unloading\") a toldah of dash (threshing). Or, because they have skin, the skin is colored by the blood congealed in it, and he is liable by reason of tzovea (dyeing).] And other forbidden things and reptiles, [such as worms, snails, and scorpions] — if one wounds them, he is exempt, [for hey have no skin.] If one hunts them for a particular purpose, he is liable; for no particular purpose, he is not liable, [for there are none in their species which are hunted.] An animal or a bird in his domain — if he hunts them, he is not liable, [for they are already \"caught\"], and if he wounds them, he is not liable, [for they have skin. And the wounder is liable in all of these instances in the Mishnah only if he needs their blood; but if he wounded only to injure, it has already been ruled (13:3): \"All who are mekalkel are exempt.\"]",
            "\tIt is forbidden to make hilmi on Sabbath [(\"hilmi\":) an abundance of water added to vegetables picked for preserving], but one can make [a little] salt-water for dipping his bread or to add to a dish. R. Yossi said: Is it not hilmi whether much or little? [That is, if a large amount is forbidden, a small amount, too, should be forbidden. Otherwise, they will say: \"A large labor is forbidden; a small one is permitted.\" Rather, both are forbidden, for it is  as if he processes and amends the food placed therein for preserving.] And this is permitted salt-water: He places oil in the water first [before he puts the salt in], or [he puts oil first] into the salt [before he adds the water. For the oil prevents the salt from mixing well with the water and thus attenuates its strength. But he may not mix salt and water first and then add the oil. For as soon as he puts the salt and the water together, he gives the impression that he is \"processing.\" The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.]",
            "\tIt is forbidden to eat Greek hyssop on Shabbath [(\"Greek hyssop\":) a kind of hyssop which grows among thorns and which kills intestinal worms], for it is not food of the healthy [and it is manifest that he is eating it as a remedy. It is forbidden to eat it on Shabbath — a decree, lest he come to pound herbs, a toldah of grinding.] But one may eat yoezer, [for many eat it when they are healthy. (\"yoezer\":) poly-trichon, which destroys liver worms] and he may drink abuv-roeh [a leafless plant which grows alone, beneficial to one who was harmed by drinking exposed water.] A man may eat all foods for healing. [Everything which one (who is not well) eats and which healthy persons (also) eat, he may eat on Shabbath, even though he eats if for therapeutic purposes.], and he may drink all liquids except the waters of Dekalim [two trees of the palm family which were in Eretz Yisrael with a spring between them. If one drank of it, the first cup would loosen his bowels, the second would activate them, and the third would purge them to the point that he released it as clear as it had entered.] and (except) \"the cup of the barren.\" [Tree resin is taken with \"the grass of joy\" and saffron, and these are pulverized and the powder placed in wine. A zavah (a woman with a genital discharge) who drinks three cups of it is healed.] (one may not drink of it) for it is [a cure] for jaundice, [but one who drinks it remains barren, for which reason it is called \"the cup of the barren.\"] But one [who is not ill] may drink the waters of Dekalim for his thirst and he may anoint himself with oil of (spice-) roots, not for purposes of healing.",
            "\tIf one's teeth hurt him, he may not suck vinegar through them [and spit it out, for it is obvious that he does so for healing purposes (but if he sucks and swallows it, it is permitted)], but he may dip it (bread in vinegar) as is his wont, and if he is healed, he is healed. If one's thighs hurt him, he may not anoint himself with wine and vinegar, [for one does so only for healing], but he may anoint himself with oil — but not rose oil, [for it is expensive, and it is manifest that he does so for healing.] The sons of kings may anoint their sores with rose oil, for it is their wont to anoint themselves so in the weekdays [i.e., (even) when they have no sores]. R. Shimon says: \"All of Israel are the sons of kings.\" [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tThese are the knots that one is liable for: the knot of the camel drivers and the knot of the mariners. [The camel drivers bore a hole in the camel's nose, place a thong there and tie it with a permanent knot. Likewise, a hole is bored in the bow of the boat, and a rope placed there and tied with a permanent knot which is never untied — comparable to the knots of the curtain threads which became undone in the tabernacle. For a permanent knot which is not the work of a craftsman, or for the work of a craftsman which is not a permanent knot, one is exempt, but it is forbidden. One is not liable until it be both permanent and the work of a craftsman. And if it is neither, it is permitted ab initio.] And just as one is liable for tying it, so is he liable for untying it. [For the chilazon trappers had to untie their net knots in order to shorten or broaden the nets.] R. Meir says: Any knot that [was not tightened so that] one can untie it with one of his hands, he is not liable for, [even if he intended it to be permanent. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.]",
            "\tThere are knots for which one is not liable [for a sin-offering] as [he is for] the knot of camel drivers and the knot of mariners. [He is not liable, but it is forbidden. These knots were not mentioned in the Mishnah. The gemara explains: such as the long thong that they tie in the nose of the longnecked camel, and, likewise, the long rope that they tie onto a ring-shaped rope hung in the bow of a boat. Sometimes it is left there a week or two and it is untied. Similarly, for any knot which is tied to remain for a specific time but not permanently, one is not liable.] A woman may tie the opening of her garment [There were bands on either side, and she would tie the right one on the left shoulder and the left one on the right shoulder. For since it was untied every day, it is not like a permanent knot, and it is permitted ab initio.], and (she may tie) the strings of her s'vachah (an embroidered hair net) and of her p'sikia [a broad belt with strings for tying at the end], and the laces of shoes or sandals, and [leather] wine-skins, [whose mouths are bent and tied. Even though there are two knots, we do not say that one of them is \"voided\" (i.e., not to be untied) and that it is a permanent knot], and a pot of meat, [Sometimes they tie a cloth around its mouth. Even though it has spouts by which the broth can be extracted without untying the knot, still it is not a (permanent) knot.] R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: [A rope] may be tied before a beast [along the breadth of the opening (of the stall)] so that it not go out. [This is the halachah.] A pail may be tied with a p'sikia (see above) [to the mouth of the well, to remain tied there, for one does not \"void\" a p'sikia there], but (he may) not (tie it) with a rope, [for he \"voids\" it there, so that it is a permanent knot.] R. Yehudah permits it. [R. Yehudah permits it only with the weaver's rope, which he requires for his work, so that he will not void it there. And the sages hold that if a weaver's rope were permitted, he would come to tie it with other ropes as well, for one kind of rope is confused with another. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] R. Yehudah stated a rule: One is not liable for any knot which is not a permanent one.",
            "\tGarments [which were taken off] may be folded [even] four or five times [in order to wear them again on that day (i.e., on Shabbath). And this is so only with one man, but not with two, for they give the impression of amending them. And with one man, also, this is so only with new garments, which are stiff and do not easily form a crease. But with old clothing, their folding amends them more, so that the impression of amendment is given. And with new clothing, too, this is so only with white clothing, but not with colored clothing. For colored clothing is more noticeably amended by folding. And with white clothing, too, this is so only when he has no other garments to change into; but if he has others to change into for the honor of Shabbath, folding is forbidden.] And beds may be spread from Shabbath night for Shabbath; but not from Shabbath for motzei Shabbath (the night after Shabbath). R. Yishmael says: It is permitted to fold clothing and to spread beds from Yom Kippur for Shabbath [when Yom Kippur falls on the eve of Sabbath, for (the sanctity of) Shabbath is greater than (that of Yom Kippur)]; and the fats of Shabbath are sacrificed on Yom Kippur, [but those of Yom Kippur are not sacrificed on Shabbath, the latter being like (sacrificing) a weekday offering on Shabbath.] R. Akiva says: [They are equal.] those of Shabbath are not sacrificed on Yom Kippur, and those of Yom Kippur are not sacrificed on Shabbath. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Akiva.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tAll holy writings may be rescued from the path of a fire (on Shabbath). [Even Prophets and the Writings may be rescued from a courtyard where a fire broke out, to a different courtyard in that mavui (alleyway), even if he did not make an eiruv — this, on condition that they be written in Assyrian script and in the holy tongue], whether they are read, [such as the Prophets read in the synagogue on Shabbath] or they are not read [such as the Writings, for even individuals (as opposed to the congregation) do not read them on Shabbath because of \"neglect of the house of study.\" (see below). They would expound (Torah) to the people on Shabbath, and they would teach them the laws of issur veheter (\"forbidden and permitted\"); for all the days of the week they were busy with their work. And they forbade the reading of the Writings on Shabbath on house of study time, for one gets \"caught up\" in them and might thereby fail to (come) to hear the derashah.] And even though they (the Writings) may be written in any tongue [and there is a view that it is not permitted to read them, and they are not rescued, still] they require genizah (secreting) [and they may not be put down indiscriminately in any place] And why may they not be read in? Because of \"neglect of the house of study.\" The container of the (Torah) scroll may be rescued (from a fire on Shabbath) with the scroll; the container of the tefillin, with the tefillin — even if there is money therein. And whither is it rescued? To a mavui which is not open [one which has three walls and one lechi (a symbolic enclosure) on the fourth side.] Ben Betheira says: Even to one that is open [one which has three walls without a lechi. Thus is it explained in the gemara. The halachah is not in accordance with Ben Betheira.]",
            "\tFood for three meals (may be rescued from a fire on Shabbath). [Even though what he does is permitted, for they permitted him to rescue them only into a courtyard with an eiruv, still, they did not permit him to rescue more. For a man is \"wrought up\" over his belongings, and if it were permitted, he might come to extinguish the fire.] (He may rescue) what is fit for a man, for a man; what is fit for a beast, for a beast. How so? If a fire broke out on the night of Shabbath [before the meal], he may rescue (enough) food for three meals; in the morning, he may rescue food for two meals; in the afternoon, food for one meal. R. Yossi says: He may always rescue food for three meals, [since this is the quota for the day and he is doing what is permitted. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi.]",
            "\tA basket full of loaves may be rescued (from a fire on Shabbath), even if it contains enough for a hundred meals. [Since he rescues it in one act, what difference does it make whether he rescues much or little?] and (one may rescue) a cake of figs [even if it is large and contains enough for many meals.] And he may tell others: \"Come and rescue for yourselves!\" And if they are astute [and realize that if they ask for a wage as workers, they are not taking a wage for (working on Shabbath), since, in the beginning, this was not their intent], they make an accounting after Shabbath. [We are speaking here of one who fears Heaven, who even though he acquired what he did from hefker (renounced property), and what he rescued is his, still, he does not wish to profit from (the loss of) others, for he knows that the owner renounced it perforce. But he also does not wish to have exerted himself gratis. Therefore, he takes his wage (for exertion).] Whither is it rescued? To a courtyard with an eiruv. Ben Betheira says: Even to one that does not have an eiruv.",
            "\tAnd thither [according to the first tanna, to a courtyard with an eiruv; according to Ben Betheira, even to a courtyard without an eiruv], he takes out all of his utensils [which he needs for that day's meals]. And he may clothe himself with whatever he can and cloak himself with whatever he can. R. Yossi says: Eighteen garments [that he is wont to wear on a weekday, and not more. They are: the outer cloak, a garment filled with sponge and cotton-wool between stitch and stitch, a broad belt worn above his garments, a short, narrow garment, an undershirt worn on one's flesh, a belt worn on that, a hat, a turban, two shoes, two socks, two gloves reaching to the armpits, two scarves for wiping himself, a small cloth for covering his head and shoulders, and his neck cloth with its two ends hanging down in front.] And he may return and clothe himself and carry out. And he may tell others: \"Come and rescue with me.\" [For just (i.e., in equal measure) as he rescues, so do they — whereas above, he said: \"Come and rescue for yourselves\"; for sometimes he rescues more than they, as when he had not yet eaten and they have, or vice versa.]",
            "\tR. Shimon b. Naness says: It is permitted to spread goatskin on a shidah, teivah, and migdal [types of wooden chests] which have caught fire, for it (the goatskin) is (only) singed [but does not catch fire, so that it protects the wooden chests from being burned.] And it is permitted to make a partition with all vessels, both full [of water] or empty, so that the fire not pass them. R. Yossi forbids it with new earthenware vessels full of water; for [being new] they cannot withstand the fire, and they split and extinguish it. [R. Yossi holds that (even) contributing to extinguishing is forbidden, even where there is monetary loss.]",
            "\tIf a gentile comes to put out a fire, he is not told: \"Put it out,\" for \"telling a gentile is (interdicted by reason of) shvuth ('resting')\"] or: \"Do not put it out\" [It is not necessary to protest, but he may be permitted to put it out], for his resting is not incumbent upon them [Israelites. A Jew is not exhorted regarding a gentile's resting if he is not his bondsman.] But if a (Jewish) minor came to put out a fire, he is not heeded, for his resting is incumbent upon them.",
            "\tA dish [of earthenware] may be inverted over a candle so that it not ignite a beam, [so long as he does not put it out. And even though he moves a vessel to save a beam, which itself may not be moved on Shabbath — this was asked of R. Yitzchak who says that one vessel may be moved only for the sake of another that may be moved, and he answered: (We are speaking of an instance) where the place of the vessel is needed, in which instance it is permitted to move it], and (it is permitted to invert a dish) over the excrement of a minor [The meaning is not the excrement of a young child, for that would be \"a chamber pot,\" which it is permitted to move and take out to the refuse. What is meant, rather, is: \"over chicken dung, because of young children,\" that they not sully themselves therewith, as when this dung is found near the refuse in the courtyard, out of one's way, so that it is not \"a chamber pot.\" Therefore, it is not permitted to move it and take it out, but a dish may be inverted over it so that a child not sully himself], and (it is permitted to invert a dish) over a scorpion, so that it not bite. R. Yehudah said: Such an instance [inverting a dish over a scorpion] came before R. Yochanan b. Zakkai in Arav, and he said: \"I fear that he might be liable for a sin-offering.\" [Since the scorpion was not running after him, I fear that he might be liable for a sin-offering by reason of \"hunting.\"] As for the halachah: Those venomous creatures whose bite kills of a certainty, such as fiery serpents and mad dogs, it is permitted to kill immediately on sight, even if they are not pursuing one. And those whose bite sometimes kills and sometimes not — if they are pursuing one, he is permitted to kill them; if they are not, he is permitted to invert a vessel over them. And if one treads upon them and kills them, unwittingly, in the normal course of walking, this is permitted. And to trap a snake to play with is forbidden.]",
            "\tIf a gentile lit a candle, a Jew is permitted to make use of its light. But if (he lit it) for the sake of the Jew, it is forbidden. If he filled up (a vessel with) water [from a well in the public domain] to give his animal to drink, a Jew may give his own animal to drink after him. But if he did so for the sake of the Jew, it is forbidden. If a gentile made a plank to alight on [They would make such a plank for alighting from a big ship], a Jew may alight after him. But if he made it for the sake of the Jew, it is forbidden. Once R. Gamliel and the elders arrived on a ship. A gentile made a plank to alight on, and R. Gamliel and the elders alighted (after him). [The tanna must apprise us of (both) candle and water. For if he taught only candle, we might think that only that is permitted, for there is no reason to decree lest he add for the sake of the Jew. For \"A candle for one is a candle for a hundred.\" But water, which lends itself to such a decree — we might think that water is forbidden. And if he taught only water, we might think that it is only water which, if he supplied it for the sake of the Jew, is forbidden; but a candle, even if he supplied it for the sake of the Jew, since he, too, can benefit by it, it is permitted. For \"A candle for one is a candle for a hundred.\" We must, therefore, be apprised of both. And even though a plank is similar to a candle (for \"A plank for one is a plank for a hundred,\") we are apprised of it because of the story of R. Gamliel and the elders, a story serving as a precedent.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tAll vessels [which have doors] may be moved on Shabbath, and their doors with them, even if they had been removed. [i.e., Even if the doors had been removed from the vessels before Shabbath, they may be moved on Shabbath together with the doors.] For they are not like house doors, [which, even if they were removed on Shabbath may not be moved], for they (house doors) are not regarded as muchan (\"ready to hand\") [i.e., they are not made for moving.]",
            "\tA man may take a hammer (on Shabbath) to crack nuts, a hatchet to cut fig-cake [After it is rounded, it is thick and hard, and a hatchet is required to cut it], a saw to slice cheese, a trowel to scoop figs [from the barrel], a winnowing shovel and a pitchfork to serve (food) to a child, a spindle and whorl to stick [into berries and all kinds of soft fruits], a hand-needle to extract a splinter, [it being permitted to do so on Shabbath, just as it is permitted to manipulate an abscess to remove pus, so long as there is no intent to make a mouth for it], and a sack needle to open the door [if one has lost his key.]",
            "\tAn olive-cane [a cane which is used to check the olives in the vat to ascertain that their oil has accumulated in it and that they are ready for the olive press] — if there is a knot on its head [a kind of cane-stopper], it acquires uncleanliness, [for being thus stopped up with a knot some of the oil flowing from the olives remains on it, and he ascertains thereby whether they are ready for pressing. The knot-stopper, then, creates a (kind of) receptacle (whereby the cane acquires uncleanliness)]; if not, [i.e., if it does not have a knot, even if it is hollow, its hollow is not made to receive anything. Therefore, it is (regarded as) a plain wooden vessel, and] it does not acquire uncleanliness. In any event, it may be moved on Shabbath, [for it is a vessel for checking olives.]",
            "\tR. Yossi says: All vessels may be moved except the large saw [that beams are sawed with] and the share of the plow [a large implement used as a knife for making the furrow. One is particular about these and sets aside a place for them for they are not fit for any other use.] All vessels may be moved whether needed or not needed [i.e., All vessels whose work is permitted, such as dishes and cups, may be moved, whether the vessel is needed for itself or for its place, or not needed, i.e., even if not needed for itself or for its place, but just to move it from the sun to the shade, or so that thieves not steal it. This, with a vessel whose work is permitted. And with a vessel whose work is forbidden, such as mortars and mills and the like — if it is needed for itself or for its place, it is permitted; if from the sun to the shade or because of thieves, it is forbidden. R. Nechemiah says: They may be moved only if needed. [The gemara explains: if needed for its particular use alone and not for any other, even if needed for itself: e.g., a knife may be used for cutting alone and not for propping up a dish. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Nechemiah.]",
            "\tAll vessels that may be moved on Shabbath, their broken parts may be moved with them, so long as they serve for some work [any work, even if not similar to its original work]: the broken parts of a kneading trough, to cover the mouth of a barrel; broken glass, to cover the mouth of a jug. R. Yehudah says: So long as they serve for work similar to their original work: the broken parts of a kneading trough, to pour mikpeh [a thick food mass, similar to dough mixed with water] into them; glass, to pour oil into them. They differ only regarding vessels that broke on Shabbath; but if they broke on Sabbath eve, all concur that they may be moved even if they do not serve for work similar to their original work. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tThe stone in a [dry] gourd [which is used for drawing water. Because it is light, it does not sink but floats, so that a stone is put into it to weight it] — if it [the gourd] is filled and it [the stone] does not fall out, [it being well fixed in the mouth of the gourd, in which instance it is regarded as a vessel], it is filled; if not, it is not filled. [It is like other stones and the gourd may not be moved, being a base for the stone that it carries.] A rod which is attached to a tafiach [a small jug with which water is drawn from a well or a spring] may be filled on Shabbath, [for the rod is regarded as a vessel].",
            "\tA window stopper [such as a board, or a curtain, or anything else with which a window (opening) is closed] — R. Eliezer says: If it is tied and hanging [not dragging on the ground], it may be used; if not, it may not be used. [For if it is dragging on the ground, when he picks it up to stop the window, he seems to be adding to the structure, and R. Eliezer holds that it is forbidden to add to a temporary tent on Shabbath.] And the sages say: In either case [whether tied or not], it may be used, [since it was muchan (\"ready to hand\") for stopping the window from yesterday, the rabbis holding that it is permitted to add to a temporary tent on Shabbath. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tAll vessel covers which have a handle may be moved on Shabbath. R. Yossi said: To what does this apply? To ground coverings [The gemara states that all agree that it is permitted to move vessel coverings even if they have no handle. And with ground coverings, such as the coverings of wells and cisterns, all agree that if the coverings have no handle it is forbidden (to move them). Where do they differ? In respect to the coverings of vessels attached to the ground, one holding that they are considered like the ground and the other, that they are not considered like the ground. The halachah is in accordance with the sages, that what is attached to the ground is considered like the ground]; but with vessel coverings, in either case (i.e., whether or not they have handles), it is permitted to move them on Shabbath."
        ],
        [
            "\tIt is permitted to remove four or five bushels of hay or of grain to accommodate guests or to prevent neglect of Torah study [i.e., if the space is needed for seating guests at a meal or for allowing students to hear the (Torah) lecture. It is permitted only for mitzvah purposes, and we are not concerned (in that instance) with undue exertion on Shabbath. (\"four or five\":) not necessarily; if he wishes, he can remove even more.], but not the store-house. [That is, so long as he does not empty out the entire store-house to the ground, for he might come to make holes.] It is permitted to remove clean terumah [Even an Israelite, for whom it is not fit, may move and remove it, it being fit for a Cohein.], demai (grain suspect as untithed), [it being fit for the poor, viz.: \"The poor may be fed demai.\" Since, if he wishes, he can make his property hefker, rendering himself \"poor,\" in which instance demai would be permitted to him, it is now also (considered) fit for him.], and ma'aser rishon whose terumah was taken, [i.e., from which terumath ma'aser was taken, but not terumah gedolah — as when a Levite came forward and took the ma'aser in the stalks, when it was not yet subject to terumah gedolah, that obligation not obtaining until the grain is smoothed in the pile. And this Levite who came forward and took the ma'aser in the stalks separates only terumath ma'aser, after which he may eat it, even though terumah gedolah has not been separated.], and ma'aser sheni and hekdesh which had been redeemed, [i.e., which the owner had redeemed and for which he had given the principal, but not the fifth. We are hereby apprised that they are (nevertheless) redeemed and that the fifth is (considered) a debt that he must repay.], and dried lupine, for it is food for the poor — but (he may) not (move) tevel (untithed grain), [even tevel d'rabanan, such as what is sown in an unperforated flower pot], and not ma'aser rishon whose terumah had not been taken [If a Levite came forward and took ma'aser after it had been smoothed in the pile, but before terumah gedolah had been separated from it, and he separated terumath ma'aser, but not terumah gedolah, this is \"ma'aser rishon whose terumah had not been taken.\" For since it was smoothed in the pile and made subject to terumah, when he takes the ma'aser rishon, even if he separates terumath ma'aser, so long as he does not separate terumah gedolah, it is tevel, and forbidden to be moved on Shabbath.], and not ma'aser sheni and hekdesh which were not redeemed, [i.e., when they were redeemed, but not in accordance with the halachah, as when he redeemed ma'aser sheni with scraps of silver. For ma'aser sheni is redeemed only with money which has a design (tzurah), it being written Deuteronomy 14:25): \"Vetzarta (similar to 'tzurah') the money in your hand.\" And hekdesh is not redeemed with land, it being written (Leviticus 27:23): \"And he (the Cohein) shall give your valuation on that day\" — something that is given from hand to hand.], and not luf [a kind of bean which, when raw, is not fit even for a beast. Rambam explains that it is a variety of onion.], and not mustard. R. Shimon b. Gamliel permits it with luf, for it is food for ravens, [as with the rich, who raise ravens for show. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel.]",
            "\tBundles of straw or bundles of wood or bundles of z'radim [moist tree shoots, cut for animal food] — if one had prepared them as animal food, they may be moved; if not, they may not be moved. A basket may be inverted for chicks, so that they can go up or go down. [And this is not considered voiding a vessel from its function, for the chicks do not remain standing on it. And according to the view that a vessel may not be moved except for the sake of another vessel that may be moved, the Mishnah is to be understood as speaking of an instance where the place of the vessel is needed.] A hen that ran away (from the house)] may be pushed [with one's hands] until it re-enters. [And only pushing is permitted, but not pulling; for a hen lifts itself from the ground, so that (by pulling) he will be found to have moved her. But geese and other birds may be pulled.] Calves and colts may be pulled in the public domain [by taking hold of their neck and sides and dragging them and assisting them and moving their legs]. A woman may pull her son. [She holds him by his arms from behind, and he moves his legs and walks.] R. Yehudah says: When is this so? When he picks one leg up and puts one down; but if he drags them, it is forbidden. [For then, she lifts him. Whenever R. Yehudah says \"When is this so\" in the Mishnah, he is not differing but explaining the words of the sages. Therefore, the halachah is in accordance with him.]",
            "\tAn animal is not delivered on a festival [The fetus is not pulled from the womb on a festival, this entailing inordinate exertion], but it is assisted [i.e., the fetus is held so that it not fall to the ground.] A woman is delivered on Shabbath, and an expert midwife is called for her from place to place [without concern for issur techumim (Sabbath-bound interdictions)], and the Sabbath is desecrated for her [from the time she is seated on the birth-stool and the blood begins to flow until all three days after she gives birth, whether or not she says \"I need.\" From three to seven days, if she says: \"I need,\" the Sabbath is desecrated; if not, it is not desecrated. From seven to thirty days, even if she says \"I need,\" it is not desecrated; but her needs are satisfied through a gentile, for she is regarded as a sick person who is not in danger, whose needs may be satisfied by a gentile.] And the umbilical cord may be tied. [For if it is not tied, but only folded, its intestines will emerge. But it is not cut on Shabbath according to the first tanna.] R. Yossi says: It is also cut. [The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi, that it is cut and cleaned, and myrtle-powdered, and the like.] And all the needs of milah (circumcision) may be satisfied on Shabbath. [In the next chapter it is explained what the needs of milah are.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tR. Eliezer says: If he did not bring the instrument [the milah knife] on Sabbath eve, he brings it on Shabbath in the open [to show that this mitzvah is so beloved that Shabbath is desecrated for it.] And in time of danger [i.e., when milah was decreed against], it is covered, with (the accompaniment of) witnesses, [who testify that he is bearing the mitzvah knife, so that he not be suspected of carrying his other belongings]. R. Eliezer said further: Wood is cut (even on Shabbath, if necessary) to make coals and to make the iron instrument [i.e., the milah knife]. A rule was stated by R. Akiva: Every labor which can be performed on Sabbath eve, [such as those preparatory to milah] do not override the Sabbath. [He differs with R. Eliezer.] And what cannot be performed on Sabbath eve [such as milah itself, which must be performed on the eighth day (even if it is Shabbath)] overrides the Sabbath.",
            "\tAll the requirements of milah are performed on the Sabbath: cutting the foreskin, uncovering [the corona (by pulling down the membrane)], sucking [the blood, even though this causes a wound, for the blood is released from its congealment only by sucking], placing a bandage and cumin. If he did not grind it (the cumin) on Sabbath eve, he chews it with his teeth and applies it. [For whatever can be done through a shinui (a variation from the norm) is done.] If wine and oil were not beaten on Sabbath eve [They were wont to beat wine and oil in a dish and mix them together as a medication for the milah, as eggs are beaten in a dish], each is applied separately. And a chaluk is not made for it ab initio [A chaluk is a piece of cloth with a hole into which they would place the milah, so that the skin not return and cover the corona.], but he winds a cloth around it. If he did not prepare it (a cloth) on Sabbath eve, he winds it on his finger, by way of wearing it, as a variation from the mode of weekday carrying], and he brings it even from another courtyard [not only from house to house in one courtyard without an eiruv, but even from one courtyard to another not joined to it by an eiruv].",
            "\tThe child is washed both before and after milah [This washing is not done in the usual manner, for what follows, viz.: \"He is sprinkled upon by hand but not with a vessel\" explains what precedes, i.e., how he is washed. But with a vessel, even sprinkling is forbidden, and, it goes without saying, washing in the usual manner.], and he is sprinkled upon by hand, but not with a vessel. R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: The child is washed on the third day (after circumcision) if it falls out on a Sabbath, it being written (Genesis 34:25): \"And it was on the third day, when they were in pain (from circumcision).\" [He differs with the first tanna and holds that the child is washed in the usual manner, both before and after milah, and also on the third day after milah, whether with water heated before Shabbath or with water heated on Shabbath itself, the child being in danger. The halachah is in accordance wit R. Eliezer b. Azaryah.] Shabbath is not desecrated for a doubtful case or for a hermaphrodite. [(\"a doubtful case\":) a doubt as to whether he is an eight month or a nine month birth. For if he is an eight month birth, he is like a stone (i.e., unable to survive), and his milah does not override Shabbath.] R. Yehudah permits it with a hermaphrodite, it being written (Genesis 17:10): \"Circumcise unto yourselves every male,\" including a hermaphrodite. And the first tanna says: It is written (Leviticus 12:3): \"the flesh of his foreskin\" — one who is all foreskin, to exclude one (i.e., a hermaphrodite) who is half-female. The halachah is not in accordance with the first tanna.]",
            "\t[The amoraim differ in the gemara as to the correct version of this Mishnah. The version subscribed to by my rabbis is the essential one, viz.:] If one had two children to circumcise: one, after Shabbath; the other, on Shabbath, and he forgot and circumcised the first on Shabbath, and the second after Shabbath, he is liable (for a sin-offering). (If he had) one to circumcise on Sabbath eve, and the other on Shabbath, and he circumcised the first on Shabbath, R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua exempts him. [This is the interpretation: If he forgot and circumcised the after-Shabbath child on Shabbath, all hold that he is liable. For he erred in the performance of a mitzvah and did not perform a mitzvah when he circumcised the after-Shabbath child on Shabbath. In this, even R. Yehoshua concurs. (\"one to circumcise on Shabbath, and one to circumcise on Sabbath eve, and he forgot and circumcised the Sabbath eve child on Shabbath, R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering\":) For milah beyond its time does not override Shabbath. And even though he erred in the performance of a mitzvah, being taken up with the Shabbath circumcision, for which reason he erred with the other — and even though he performed a mitzvah even with the first, for he was fit for circumcision, though not for circumcision overriding Shabbath — R. Eliezer holds  that if one erred in the performance of a mitzvah and performed a mitzvah which does not override Shabbath, he is liable. (\"and R. Yehoshua exempts him\":) He holds that if one erred in the performance of a mitzvah and performed a mitzvah which does not override Shabbath, he is exempt; for he felt that he was operating under the sanction of beth-din. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehoshua.]",
            "\tA child is circumcised (either) on the eighth day, the ninth day, the tenth day, the eleventh day, or the twelfth day — not before and not after. How so? Normally, he is circumcised on the eighth day. If he were born ben hashmashoth (at twilight), he is circumcised on the ninth day [the eighth day from the day following (his birth)]. If he were born ben hashmashoth on Sabbath eve, he is circumcised on the tenth day. [It is possible that ben hashmashoth is day, so that if he (the child born ben hashmashoth) were born on Sabbath eve, he could not be circumcised on the following Shabbath, for that might be the ninth day and milah out of its time, which does not override Shabbath. Therefore, he has to wait until after Shabbath, until the tenth day.] If yom tov (a festival) fell out after Shabbath, [milah out of its time does not override it, so that] he is circumcised on the eleventh day. If the two days of Rosh Hashanah (fell out after Shabbath), he is circumcised on the twelfth day, [for the two days are of one sanctity and milah out of its time does not override the second day of Rosh Hashanah. Therefore, he is circumcised on the twelfth day.] A sick child is not circumcised until he recovers [and seven full days have passed from the time of his recovery.]",
            "\tThese are the tzitzin [strands of flesh remaining from the foreskin] which (if they remain) invalidate milah: Flesh which covers most of the corona. And he (one with such tzitzin) does not eat terumah [if he were a Cohein. For an uncircumcised Cohein is forbidden to eat terumah, it being written in respect to the Pesach offering (Exodus 12:45): \"A sojourner and a hired man may not eat of it,\" and, in respect to terumah, (Leviticus 22:10): \"The sojourner with a Cohein and his hired man may not eat the holy thing\" — Just as the Pesach offering is forbidden to one who is uncircumcised, so, terumah.] And if he were fat, [so that after the entire foreskin had been removed, the organ still seems to be covered by flesh], it is corrected [i.e., the thickness is reduced with the knife] because of \"appearances\" [i.e., so that he not give the appearance of being uncircumcised.] If he were circumcised, but the milah were not exposed (by pulling down the membrane), it is as if he had not been circumcised, [and he must go back and expose it, even if he had withdrawn. And as long as he is engaged in circumcision on Shabbath, he cuts both those tzitzin that invalidate milah and those which do not. After he withdraws, he returns for invalidating tzitzin but not for non-invalidating tzitzin.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tR. Eliezer says: The mashmereth, [which filters wine lees] may be suspended on a festival. [It is stretched taught in a circle over a vessel. And even though it forms a tent, this is permitted on a festival, R. Eliezer holding that processing of food which could have been done on the eve of a festival may (nonetheless) be done on the festival. But on Shabbath, he may not suspend it ab initio.] And they may be placed into a suspended one on Shabbath. [If it were already suspended, it is permitted to place wine lees on it for filtration, for this is not the usual mode of borer (selecting).] And the sages say: The mashmereth may not be suspended on a festival, [for he thereby makes a temporary tent, giving the impression of mundane activity]. And they may not be placed into a suspended one on Shabbath, [this being a toldah of borer or meraked (sifting). The halachah is in accordance with the sages.]",
            "\tWater may be placed on lees so that they be cleared. [On Shabbath, water may be placed on lees which had been placed there before Shabbath, so that the lees be cleared and all their wine flow out. Another interpretation: Water may be placed on lees left in the barrel, so that it absorb the flavor of the wine, and be taken and drunk on Shabbath. And there is no problem of borer here.] And wine may be filtered [to remove white floury substances which collect in it] through scarves [specific for this. And there is no reason to decree (against it) lest he wring out the scarves, since they are used exclusively for this purpose. One must take care, however, not to form with his hands a kind of declivity in the scarf over the vessel for the wine to descend in, so that the activity not be performed as it is on a weekday.], and (wine may be filtered) through a kefifah mitzrith [a basket made of palm twigs. This, so long as it not be more than a tefach higher than the base of the vessel beneath, so that it not form a temporary tent.] And an egg may be placed into a mustard filter. [They would place a beaten egg into turbid matter to whiten and clear it.] And it is permitted to make ainomlin [a mixture of wine, honey, and pepper] on Shabbath. R. Yehudah says: On Shabbath in a kos (a cup); on a festival, in a lagin [bigger than a kos and smaller than a chavith]; on the intermediate days of a festival, in a chavith. R. Tzaddok says: All according to the (number of) guests. [If there are many guests, he makes a lot, whether on Shabbath, festival, or intermediate day. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna, that one may make as much ainomlin as he likes on Shabbath.]",
            "\tIt is not permitted to soak chiltith (asafetida) in lukewarm water. [Chiltith is hot and commonly eaten in cold places. It is not permitted to soak it on Shabbath because it gives the appearance of a mundane activity.]; but it is permitted to put it in vinegar. And it is not permitted to soak horse-beans [in a vessel to separate their psoleth (unwanted matter), which floats to the top], and it is not permitted to rub them [with one's hands so that the psoleth falls, this being borer.] But it is permitted to place them into a sieve or into a (perforated) basket, [even though the psoleth sometimes falls through the holes and is sieved of itself.] It is not permitted to sieve hay in a sieve [They would make hay from straw by cutting it with threshing sledges, the tails of the stalks becoming hay], and it may not be placed on a height so that the chaff descend. [The chaff is not suitable for animal food, and they would generally sieve the hay to extract it.] But he may place it (the hay) on a sieve or into the manger, [even if the chaff fall of itself; for \"something which is not intended is permitted,\" as per R. Shimon.]",
            "\tIt is permitted to scrape out [the manger on Shabbath] before an ox being fattened, [so that the sediment in the manger not become intermixed with the hay and barley that is placed before it and cause it to recoil from the feed], and it [the hay in front of the animal] may be moved aside [when there is an abundance of it, so that it not be trodden and sullied with excrement.] These are the words of R. Dossa; and the sages forbid it. [This refers to both, scraping out the manger and moving the hay aside. And R. Dossa and the sages differ only with a vessel-manger, but with a ground manger, they all agree that one may not scrape it out, for he might come to make holes. And the sages decree against a vessel-manger by reason of (his possibly coming to do so with) a ground manger. The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] (Food) may be taken from before one beast and placed before a different beast on Shabbath. [And we do not regard this as vain moving (on Shabbath). It is certainly not vain, for an animal does not reject food taken from another. This applies only if he takes it from before an ass and places it before an ox, and the like, but not vice versa. For the food of the ox is fouled with the spittle of its mouth, and the ass does not eat of it.]",
            "\tStraw on a bed [is generally used as fuel, so that if one wishes to move it around so that it be soft and comfortable for sleeping upon], he should not move it with his hand, [for it is muktzeh], but he should move it with his body, [with his shoulders, for this is \"moving from the side,\" which is not regarded as (interdicted) moving.] But if it had been designated as animal food, or if there were a mattress or a sheet on it, [in which instance it is clear that the straw had been placed there for lying upon, its status is that of a (movable) item, and], he may move it with his hand. A home clothes press — it is permitted to remove [clothing from it for Sabbath use], but not to press [clothing thereon, this being a weekday function]; and a washerman's clothes press — it may not be touched. [For it is used to straighten clothing and is pressed down very tightly, so that removing clothing therefrom is like stirah (\"razing\")]. R. Yehudah says: If it were (partially) opened from Sabbath eve, he may open the whole and take it (his clothing) out. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tA man may carry his son [in a courtyard] with a stone in his (the son's) hand [and we do not say that he (the father) is carrying the stone], or a basket with a stone in it. [This, on condition that there be fruits in the basket; for if not, it (the basket) is a basis for something forbidden (the stone), and it is forbidden to carry it. And there must also be in it such fruits which, if thrown to the ground, will spoil, such as berries and grapes and the like. But if they were fruits like nuts and almonds, he shakes out the fruits (along with the stone). And with fruits that spoil, too, like berries and grapes, if he can move them to the edge of the basket and shake out the stone alone, it is forbidden to carry it with the stone. Our Mishnah is speaking of an instance in which the sides or the bottom of the basket have eroded to the extent that it is impossible to use the basket without the stone.] And it is permitted to carry unclean terumah together with clean terumah and chullin (mundane food), [but it is forbidden to carry unclean terumah by itself (on Shabbath)]. R. Yehudah says: Meduma (a mixture) may also be brought up with a hundred and one. [If a sa'ah of terumah fell into a hundred sa'ah of chullin, it is permitted to \"bring up\" the sa'ah of terumah from them on Shabbath so that all remain chullin and permitted to non-Cohanim. And we do not say that he is thereby \"correcting\" (on Sabbath); for we regard terumah that fell into chullin as lying alone and not being intermixed, so that when it is \"brought up\" (i.e., when a sa'ah is given to a Cohein from the one hundred and one, it is considered as if the terumah itself which fell into it is brought up, so that there is no \"correcting.\" The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tIf a stone were on the mouth of a (wine) jug, he inclines it (the jug) on its side [if he wishes to take some wine], and it (the stone) falls (of itself), [but he may not remove the stone with his hands]. If it (the jug with the stone on its mouth) were among the other jugs [and he was afraid that it might fall on them and break them, he picks it up [He picks up the whole jug, removes it to a different spot] and [there] inclines it on its side, and it falls. If money were on a mattress, he shakes out the mattress and it falls. [This, if he needs the mattress, but not its place. If he needs its place, he lifts the mattress together with the money. And this, only if he forgot the money on the mattress on Sabbath eve; but if he intentionally placed it there, the mattress becomes a basis for something forbidden, and it is forbidden to move it or to shake out the money that is on it.] If there were lishlesheth upon it [foul matter: spittle, excrement, dung], he cleans it off with a cloth, [but he may not spill water upon it, for mattresses generally are of cloth, and the soaking of cloth with water is its cleansing (which is forbidden on Shabbath)]. If it (the money) were (on a mattress) of leather, [which is not thus cleansed], he spills water upon it until it (the lishlesheth) is gone. [But he may not actually wash it, for since mattresses and pillows are generally soft, they are subject to washing if of soft leather. Simply placing water upon them, however, is not their cleansing.]",
            "\tBeth Shammai say: It is permitted to lift bones and shells from the table (on Shabbath). Beth Hillel say: He takes the entire tablecloth and shakes it out. [The gemara explains that we do not rely upon our Mishnah as stated, but reverse it, viz.: \"Beth Hillel say: It is permitted … and Beth Shammai say: He takes the entire tablecloth, etc.\", for it (the tablecloth) has the status of a (movable) article. But he may not take the bones and the shells with his hands. For Beth Hillel hold with R. Shimon; and Beth Shammai, with R. Yehudah. However, Beth Hillel permit it only with bones and shells that are fit to be eaten by animals though not fit to be eaten by men; but if they are not fit to be eaten by animals either, Beth Hillel concur that it is forbidden to handle them, for in such an instance, even R. Shimon concurs.] It is permitted to remove crumbs [even] less than the size of an olive from the table, and bean shells, and lentil shells, for they are animal food. A sponge — if it has a leather handle, one may clean with it; if not, one may not clean with it. [For when he holds it, it is squeezed by his fingers, and it is inevitable (that water be squeezed out), in which instance R. Shimon concedes (that it is forbidden)]. And the sages say: In either case, [whether or not it has a handle], it may be taken on Shabbath [when it is dry], and it does not acquire uncleanliness, [for it is neither a wooden vessel, nor cloth, nor sack, nor metal]."
        ],
        [
            "\tIf a jug were broken (on Shabbath), he may rescue from it food for three meals, [even in many vessels; for, if in one vessel, it has already been stated (16:3) that he may rescue as much as he wishes.] And he may tell others: \"Come and rescue for yourselves,\" [each one, enough for three meals], so long as he not sponge it up, [i.e., that he sponge up the wine and release it (into a different vessel), even if the sponge has a handle, where there is no fear that he will squeeze it (with his hands), (still, it is forbidden) so that he not do (on Shabbath) as he does no a weekday. And it is forbidden even to take in his hands oil and honey (which are thick and stick to his hands) and wipe them on the edge of a vessel, so that he not perform a weekday activity.] It is forbidden to squeeze fruit to extract juice, [this being \"mefarek\" (unloading), a toldah of threshing.], and if it came out of itself, it is forbidden, [a decree, lest he squeeze it ab initio]. R. Yehudah says: If [those fruits were designated] to be eaten, what issues from them is permitted, for he does not desire what flows from them, so that there is no reason to decree that he might squeeze them]; and if to extract their juice, [in which instance, he desires what issued from them], it is forbidden, [a decree, lest he squeeze them. And with olives and grapes R. Yehudah concedes to the sages that even though he designated them for eating, what issued from them is forbidden. For since they are generally squeezed, if juice come out, he desires it. And with other fruits the sages concede to R. Yehudah (that what issues from them is permitted). They differ only in respect to berries and pomegranates, R. Yehudah comparing them to other fruits, and the sages to olives and grapes. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.] If honeycombs were broken on Sabbath eve, and the honey issued forth of itself, it is forbidden. R. Eliezer permits it. [When honeycombs are broken, the honey flows from the wax of itself, and it is not customary to squeeze them. And the sages forbid it — a decree, by reason of those that are not already broken. The halachah is in accordance with R. Eliezer.]",
            "\tEverything which came into hot water [i.e., which was cooked] Sabbath eve may be soaked in hot water on Shabbath. And everything which did not come into hot water on Sabbath eve may be rinsed with hot water on Shabbath, [for its rinsing is not its cooking; but it may not be soaked] — except old salted fish, [a year after its salting], small salted fish, and Spanish colias [a thin-skinned fish, whose rinsing in hot water is the completion of its cooking], for their rinsing is the completion of their processing.",
            "\tIt is permitted to break a jug (on Shabbath), [this being \"mekalkel\" (damaging)] in order to eat figs from it, so long as he not intend to make a vessel [i.e., to make a nice opening for it]. And it is forbidden to puncture a stopper of a (wine jug) [i.e., the stopper which is sealed onto the mouth of the jug; but he removes it all, for puncturing the stopper is (considered) fashioning an opening.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Yossi permits it, [this not being the conventional opening. The halachah is in accordance with R. Yossi.] And he may not puncture it from its side. [That is, R. Yossi permits puncturing it only from the top, at the head of the stopper, it not being customary to fashion an opening there, but rather to remove the entire stopper. But, on the side, sometimes one does puncture the side of the stopper to make an opening (not wanting to open it on top so that pebbles or sand not fall into the wine.)] And if it were punctured, he is not permitted to place wax upon it, this being memareach (\"smearing\") [forbidden by reason of memachek (\"erasing\")]. R. Yehudah said: Such an instance [placing wax, etc.] came before R. Yochanan b. Zakkai in Arav, and he said: \"I fear that he might be liable for a sin-offering\" [if he smeared wax to fasten it to the walls of the vessel around the hole.]",
            "\tIt is permitted to place a dish in a hole [where there is no water] so that it be preserved [i.e., so that it not become spoiled by the heat. We are hereby apprised that we do not fear that he might dig holes in the ground so that the pot can rest evenly], and (it is permitted to place a container of) good [i.e., drinkable] water into bad water to cool it off. [i.e., It is permitted to place it into a mikveh of bad, undrinkable water. (Although this is obvious, it is stated here because of what follows, viz.:)] And (it is permitted to place) cold water in the sun to become warm. [I might think that this should be forbidden — a decree, lest he come to place it in hot ashes; we are, therefore, apprised otherwise.] If one's garments fell into water while he was on the road (on Shabbath), he may continue walking in them and not fear [that people will suspect him of having washed them.] When he reaches the outer courtyard [near the entrance of the city, a guarded place], he may spread them out in the sun [to dry], but not before the people, [for they will suspect him of having washed them. (This Mishnah is rejected, because it is an acknowledged halachah with us that \"everything the sages forbade because of 'appearance' is forbidden even in the inner sanctum\" Therefore, it is forbidden to spread them out, even not before the people)].",
            "\tIf one bathed in the waters of a cave or in the waters of Tiberias, and he wiped himself, even with ten towels, [one after the other — Even though not much water was absorbed in each one, still,] he may not bring them in his hand into his house, even by means of an eiruv. For there is no problem of carrying here, but a decree, lest he forget and wring them out upon entering]. But ten men can wipe their faces, hands, and feet with one towel and bring it in their hands. [for since they are many, they will remind each other. Even with one towel for ten men, where much water is absorbed, still, they may bring it in their hands, and we do not fear that they might wring it out.]",
            "\tOne may anoint himself [with oil on Shabbath] and pass his hand [over his entire body for pleasure], but he may not rub himself vigorously, and he may not scratch himself [with a \"scratcher,\" viz. (Job 2:8): \"And he took himself a scraper to scrape himself with,\" this giving the appearance of a weekday activity.] It is forbidden to go down to a polima [a valley full of water with sticky mud on the bottom, with places where one sinks into it so deeply that he cannot get out until some men get together and pull him out with great exertion. Another interpretation: a valley whose soil is so slippery that one who washes there falls and gets his clothes wet, so that he might come to wring them out.], and it is forbidden to make an afiktveizin (an emetic) [in order to vomit. \"afik,\" \"tzvei,\" \"zin,\" literally, \"to expel food from the place of its cooking,\" i.e., the stomach. \"afik\" — expel; \"tvei\" — cook (The targum of Exodus 12:8) \"tzli esh\" - \"roasted on the fire\" is \"tvei nur\"); \"zin\" — \"mazon\" (food). And it is only to drink something which induces throwing up that is forbidden on Shabbath, but to insert a finger in one's mouth in order to do so is permitted. And if one is in distress and will be healed by vomiting, it is permitted even to drink an emetic.], and it is forbidden to manipulate (the body of) a child (\"ein me'atzvin\"), [to adjust his bones and vertebrae; for it gives the appearance of boneh (\"building\"). And this is so only later, but on the day of his birth, it is permitted. \"me'atzvin,\" as in (Job 10:8): \"Your hands fashioned me (itzvuni) and made me.\"], and a break (i.e., a broken bone) is not returned (to its place.) [The halachah is not in accordance with this Mishnah. The halachah is that a broken bone may be returned on Shabbath.] If one's arm or leg were dislocated, he may not douse them (\"lo yitrefem\") with cold water. [\"yitrefem,\" as in \"beitzim t'rufoth beka'arah\" (\"eggs beaten in a dish\"). He may not douse the side of the dislocation with cold water, for it is apparent that he does so for healing purposes.], but he washes in the usual manner, and if it heals, it heals."
        ],
        [
            "\tA man may ask of his neighbor (on Shabbath) pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil, so long as he does not say: \"Lend me.\" [For \"a loan\" connotes \"for a long time,\" and it is ruled that \"a loan,\" unqualified, is for thirty days — so that the lender might come to write in his account book (on Sabbath): \"I lent that man this and this,\" so that he not forget.] Likewise, a woman (may ask) loaves of her neighbor. And if he does not trust him, he leaves his cloak with him and he makes an accounting with him after Shabbath. Likewise, on Pesach eve in Jerusalem which falls out on Shabbath, he leaves his cloak with him [if he does not trust him] and he takes his Pesach offering [and dedicates it on Shabbath, for time-specific obligations may be dedicated on Shabbath.], and he makes an accounting with him after the festival.",
            "\tA man may count his guests and his portions verbally, but not from a memo. [If he wrote on Sabbath eve: \"Such and such guests, etc.\" so that he not forget them, he may not read from that memo on Shabbath — a decree, lest he erase. Or else, because he might come to read \"secular notes,\" and on Shabbath it is permitted to read only the written Law and the oral Law (after it was written down), and their commentaries. But other things, or books of wisdom which are not of words of prophecy or their exegeses are forbidden.] And one may cast lots at the table [(to determine who will get which portion)] with his children and family members, [who are \"regulars\" at his table and who are not overly particular; but not with others, for members of a group who are fastidious with each other, who are not forgiving and yielding with each other, transgress through measuring, weighing, numbering, lending, and paying, the rabbis having decreed against these lest he write.], so long as he not intend a large portion against a small portion, because of gambling. [Our Mishnah is wanting. This is what is meant: \"One may cast lots with his children and with his household members at the table, even a large portion against a small portion — but only with his children and household members and not with others. And only if he not intend a large portion against a small portion.\" It is only then that it is forbidden on a festival and permitted on a weekday. But if he intends a large portion against a small portion, it is forbidden even on a weekday, because of gambling. For this is akin to theft, and asmachta (\"reliance\") does not effect acquisition. This instance is one of asmachta, for he \"relies\" on the lot's falling on the large portion, for which reason he acquiesces in the possibility of its falling on the small portion, too. But if he knew ab initio that this would occur, he would not acquiesce.] And it is permitted to cast lots (chalashim) on a festival [upon offerings that were slaughtered on the festival, for distribution among the Cohanim. (\"chalashim\":) lots, as in (Isaiah 14:12): \"Cholesh ('He casts lots') upon the nations.\"], but not on the portions [of the offerings of the day before.]",
            "\tA man may not hire workers on Shabbath, [it being written (Isaiah 58:13): \"…from doing your business or speaking words.\"] And a man may not tell his neighbor to hire workers for him. [This is stated for the sake of the implication, viz.: He may not tell him to hire workers, but he may say: \"Shall we see you standing for me at night?\" i.e., \"Now we shall see if you come to me when it gets dark.\" And even though both know that he thus gives him notice that he intends to hire him, since he does not mention hiring explicitly, it is permitted, the ruling being: \"speaking\" is forbidden; deliberating is permitted.] One may not wait for dark at the tchum to hire workers or to bring fruits [i.e., On Shabbath, one may not draw near to the end of the tchum (the Sabbath bound) and wait for dark there to be close to the place of workers or to an orchard to bring fruits. For anything which it is forbidden to do on Shabbath, it is forbidden to wait for on Shabbath until dark], but he may wait for dark [to be near to go out] to guard (his fruits) [for it is permitted to guard one's fruits on Shabbath], and he may bring them in his hand (after Shabbath), [since this was not his prime intent]. Abba Shaul stated a rule: Whatever I am permitted to speak of (on Shabbath) I am permitted to wait for (at the tchum) for dark. [Abba Shaul here differs with the first tanna, who forbids all waiting for dark, making no distinction between doing so for a mitzvah or for a mundane activity. He comes to tell us that waiting for dark for a mitzvah is permitted. For just as it is permitted to tell one's fellow on Shabbath: \"Be ready (after Shabbath) to go to bring a casket and burial shrouds for one who has died,\" so is it permitted to wait for dark at the tchum in order to do so after dark. And what follows, viz.: \"It is permitted to wait for dark at the tchum to see to the needs of the bride and the needs of one who has died, etc.\" is the view of Abba Shaul. The halachah is in accordance with him.]",
            "\tIt is permitted to wait for dark at the tchum to see to the needs of the bride and the needs of one who has died, to bring casket and shrouds for him. If a gentile brought flutes on Shabbath, a Jew is forbidden to use them in mourning, [a penalty, it being manifest that they were brought for a Jew], unless they came from nearby, [i.e., unless we know of a certainty that they came from a place within the tchum and not outside it]. If they (gentiles) made a casket for him [for a gentile to be buried in, or to sell] or dug a grave for him, a Jew may be buried therein; and if he made it for a Jew, he may never be buried therein.",
            "\tAll the needs of one who has died may be attended to (on Shabbath). He may be anointed [with oil] and rinsed [with water. And his upper and lower openings may be stopped up with a cloth or something else, so that wind not enter therein and he swell.], so long as he (the one in attendance) not stir a limb [i.e., that he not move and lift his hand or his foot or his eyelashes, it being forbidden to move a dead person or any of his limbs, even though it is permitted to touch him. And so with all muktzeh — it is permitted to touch it and forbidden to move it. And it is forbidden even to touch an egg hatched on Shabbath or on a festival, for, because of its roundness, \"its touching is its moving.\"] The mattress may be removed from under him so that he come to lie on the sand and be preserved [and not putrefy quickly because of the heat of the sheets and the mats. But he may not be moved to place him upon the sand, as stated above: \"so long as he not stir a limb.\"] His jaw may be closed [if it were opening] — not to move it up [i.e., not to close what had already opened, for this would entail moving a limb], but [to insure] that it not (open) further. Similarly, if a beam had broken, it may be supported with a bench or a bedpost [whose status is that of a movable) article] — not to raise it, [for that would be boneh (\"building\")], but [to insure] that it not (break) further. The eyes of a dead man may not be closed on Shabbath, [even after he has expired, this constituting moving of a limb], and (they may also) not be closed on a weekday. And if one closes a man's eyes as he is dying, he is a spiller of blood, [for the slightest thing may hasten his death.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tIf it were getting dark for one on the road (on Sabbath eve), he gives his purse to a gentile [while it is still day. And even though he becomes the Jew's messenger to carry his purse on Shabbath, it is axiomatic with the rabbis that a man will not contain himself when his money is at stake, and if this (the above) were not permitted, he would come to carry it four cubits in the public domain.] And if there is no gentile with him, he places it on an ass. [But if there is a gentile with him, he gives it to the gentile. Why so? For one is commanded vis-à-vis the resting of an ass, but not vis-à-vis the resting of a gentile. And when he places his purse on the ass when it gets dark, he does so while it is walking; that is, after it lifted its legs to walk, so that it does not perform akirah. And when the animal is going to stop, he removes it from her. And when she again lifts her legs to walk, he again places it upon her — this, so that the animal not perform akirah and hanachah. For if he is allowed to perform akirah and hanachah with him driving and leading it, he is \"mechamer\" (driving a laden beast) on Shabbath, which is forbidden whatever the beast is carrying, viz. (Exodus 20:10): \"You shall not perform any labor, you … and your beast.\" Which labor is it that is performed jointly between a man and his beast? Mechamer.] When he reaches the outer courtyard [of the city, the first guarded place — When he comes to unload the ass] he takes [from it with his hand] vessels which may be moved on Shabbath. And (to release) those which may not be moved on Shabbath, he frees the [saddle] ropes, and the sacks fall of themselves.",
            "\tIt is permitted to untie bundles of sheaves before a beast (on Shabbath). [For so long as they are tied, they are not (ready) food, and they are untied to render them food. But to scatter them, as grass is scattered before animals, so that they smell them and find them appetizing — this is forbidden with bundles of sheaves. For since they are rendered food with the untying of the bundles, the scattering only provides for greater enjoyment, and it is forbidden to exert oneself (on Shabbath) for something which is already food.] It is permitted to scatter kifin [moist rice leaves. It is permitted to scatter and spread them out before the beast to smell. For without such scattering it is not food], but not zirin. [They are the same as \"pekiei amir\" (\"bundles of sheaves,\" above) but whereas peki'in have two ties, one on either end, zirin have three ties. And even though they are tightly compressed and generate heat, so that the animal shuns them, still, he is permitted only to free the three ties, rendering them \"food,\" as peki'in.] It is forbidden to cut up both grain-grass or carobs as fodder for a beast, either large or small, [this being (regarded as) unnecessary exertion]. R. Yehudah permits it with carobs for a small animal, [it being hard for a small animal to chew carobs with its thin teeth. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tIt is not permitted to gorge (ein ovsin) a camel [\"ovsin\" — to make an avus (a manger) in its stomach] (on Shabbath), and it is not permitted to stuff it [to stuff the food into its throat — less than \"ovsin\"], but it is permitted to put food into its mouth [in a spot whence it can give it back]. And it is not permitted to fatten (ein mamrim) calves [\"mamrim,\" as in (Isaiah 1:11): \"vechelev meri'im\" (\"and the fat of fatted beasts\"), sticking the food behind the throat, in a spot where the animal cannot give it back], but it is permitted to put food into their mouths. And it is permitted to stick food into the mouths of hens [in a spot whence they can give it back.] And it is permitted to place water in their hash, but it is not permitted to knead it [in the water]. And it is not permitted to place water before bees, [it not being incumbent upon him to feed them, for they go out and eat in the field, and water is available for them in swamps], nor before pigeons in the cote. But it is permitted to place it before geese and hens and before hard'sioth doves, [which are domesticated in houses, so called after King Hordos (Herod), who raised them in his palace.]",
            "\tIt is permitted to cut [non-rooted] gourds before a beast, [even though they are generally not eaten by beasts but by men], and (it is permitted to cut) carrion [which became carrion on Shabbath] before dogs, [even though ben hashmashoth (twilight on Sabbath eve) it stood (to be eaten) by men and not by beasts.] R. Yehudah says: If it were not carrion from Sabbath eve, it is forbidden, not having been muchan \"ready for use\"). [For everything that is fit for human consumption is not set aside for beasts. And even if the animal were sick on Sabbath eve, it is felt that it will recover. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tIt is permitted to annul vows on Shabbat [a husband, his wife's vows; a father, his daughter's], and it is permitted to consult [a sage (for absolution of vows)] for things which are needed for Shabbath, [as when he vowed that he would not eat that day. This (\"things which are needed for Shabbath\") refers specifically to consulting a sage; for a husband or a father may annul both vows which are Sabbath-need related and those which are not, for he can annul them only on the day that he hears them. And with vows which are Sabbath-need related, even if he had time to consult a sage about them before Shabbath, he is permitted to consult him on Shabbath.], and it is permitted to stop up the maor [the window by which light enters, with a board or anything else used for that purpose], and it is permitted to measure a cloth [If it came in contact with something unclean and then with clean things, it is measured to determine whether or not it is three by three fingers. For a cloth less than three by three neither acquires nor transmits uncleanliness.], and (it is permitted to measure) a mikveh [to determine whether it is one by one cubits and three cubits high. For these are measurements of mitzvah, for which reason they are permitted on Shabbath.] And it happened in the days of the father of R. Tzaddok, and in the days of the father of Abba Shaul b. Batnith that they stopped up a maor [a window, called a \"maor\" because light (orah) enters through it] with a tafiach [an earthenware pitcher] and tied a mekeidah [an earthen vessel] with gemi (reed-grass) [\"gemi,\" specifically, for, being fit for animal food, it is not voided (to the vessel) as a permanent knot] (they tied it, etc.) to determine whether or not there was a cleft of a handbreadth in the gigith (the basin). [There was a small path between two houses, which was not roofed, but over which a basin was inverted. There were windows which opened from the houses to the path, and they feared lest someone die in one of the houses and the tumah (dead-body uncleanliness) go from the window to the path and from the path to the other house by way of the open window. They, therefore, stopped up the window facing the house of the tumah with a tafiach with its back to the path (an earthenware vessel not acquiring tumah from the back and thus serving as a partition against tumah). For they feared that the cleft in the gigith might be less than a handbreadth, in which instance the gigith would \"tent\" the path and the uncleanliness would come by way of the path from one house to the other. Afterwards, they had to open the window and take out the stopper, and they wanted to determine whether the cleft in the gigith were a handbreadth (or more) — in which instance there would not be a tent in that path for the conducting of the tumah, for the tumah would leave the path upwards by way of the cleft in the gigith — or whether it were less than a handbreadth, in which instance the path would act as a \"tent\" and conduct the tumah from house to house. They, therefore, measured a mekeidah, tied it with gemi, and extended it to the top (of the gigith) to see whether or not the cleft were a handbreadth.] And from what they prescribed we learned that we stop up, and measure, and tie on Shabbath [so long as it not be a permanent knot and the measurement be for mitzvah or to the end of a halachic ruling.]"
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}