Talmud sobre Êxodo 36:6

HALAKHAH: ²⁵For this and the following paragraphs there exists a reasonably complete Genizah text (G) edited by L. Ginzberg (שרידי ירושלמי New York 1909 p. 62). A slightly garbled parallel is in Ševuot 1:1, explained there in Notes 5–20. The Notes here are restricted to references and short explanations.“Export on the Sabbath,” etc. What means “two which are four”? Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability? Let us hear from the following²⁶Mishnah Ševuot 1:1.: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds.” Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability²⁷For R. Abba, there is a difference between the Mishnaiot in Šabbat and Ševuot in that in the case here at least one person involved always is not liable whereas in Ševuot only one person is mentioned and all cases are of liability. For R. Yose, the parallel is only that of Mishnaiot 1–2, not 3–4. Each Mishnah describes two cases of liability; these are two covering in all four cases of liability as in Ševuot 1:1.. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability. But was it not stated²⁸Mishnah Middot 4:1. The Mishnah is purely descriptive of the construction of Herod’s Temple; the notions of liability or no liability are inappropriate., “the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four?” Can you say, liability and no liability? Should we state twelve cases of no liability²⁹There are four cases in the Mishnah where one party is liable and the other is not involved. Then there are four cases in which both parties are involved but nobody is criminally liable. One might construct another four cases where nobody is liable; e. g., if the poor man reaches into the house, picks something up, which the householder then takes from his hand and deposits outside.? We only come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of liability. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted³⁰Since in Mishnaiot 1–2 only one person acts, it is inappropriate to apply the label “not liable” to the other person. Babli 2b/3a.! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Bringing in or taking out are one but the Sages counted them as two³¹In G, Ševuot 1:1, editio princeps, and a quote in RITBA Ševuot 1:1: “Taking out or bringing in are two but the Sages counted them as one.” As noted later in this paragraph, taking out is called work by Jeremiah (which cannot be used as a legal text but is confirmation of the interpretation of the law) whereas bringing in is only forbidden by the argument that taking out from A to B is bringing in to B from A.. Taking out on the Sabbath does not include bringing in; if one exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who brings in half the size of a dried fig and takes out half the size of a dried fig is liable³²Even an intrinsic liability can be prosecuted only if a minimal amount was transported, which for food is determined as the size of a dried fig (Chapters 7–8). Since taking out and bringing in small quantities are to be combined, taking out and bringing in are representatives of one and the same action, viz., transporting.. And from where that taking out is called work? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan³³In Ševuot 1:1 and the Babli (6b): R. Joḥanan; quoted without attribution by R. Ḥananel Šabbat 3b; in a number of Medieval sources R. Jonathan. understood it from the following³⁴Ex. 36:6. Babli 96a.: Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp as follows, men or women should no longer do work to contribute to the sanctuary. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors. Rebbi Ḥizqiah³⁵Missing in Ševuot. In G, R, Aḥa in the name or R. Ila; in Sefer Haˋittim (ed. Mekize Nirdamim p. 300) R. Aḥa in the name of R. Ḥiyya. In Sefer Miṣwot Gadol #65, (part 1, fol. 17a in Venice edition) R. Ḥiyya in the name of R. Aḥa. in the name of Rebbi Ila: You even understand bringing in from this. Just as the people refrained from taking objects out of their houses to give to the collectors so the collectors did not accept anything from them to bring into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood everything from the following³⁶Jer. 17:22.: do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.

HALAKHAH: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc. ⁵This paragraph is a slightly garbled copy of the first paragraph in Tractate Šabbat 1:1, of which there exists a Genizah parallel (L. Ginzberg, Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah, New York 1909, p. 62). The text in Šabbat is original since in both versions, “here” refers to Šabbat while “there” refers to Ševuot, and in addition, the statement of R. Ba logically has to precede that of R. Yose as in the Šabbat text. Probably the scribe of the Ševuot text available to the Leiden ms.’s scribe had omitted the statement of R. Ba and added it in the text when he noticed the omission. S. Liebermann, in his Commentary to the Yerushalmi Šabbat (Hayerushalmi Kipshuto, New York 1995, Jerusalem 1935) holds that the source is Ševuot. This is difficult to accept; the text is from Šabbat but the problem is the discrepancy in meaning of the same expression “two which are four” used in very different meanings in our Mishnah.
The problem starts with the rather complicated language of Mishnah Šabbat 1:1: “There are two cases which are four for exporting and two cases which are four for importing.” The Mishnah then goes on to explain that if a rich person, the owner, stands at the window of a house (which is a private domain) and a poor person stands in the street (the public domain), if then the rich person delivers an object to the poor outside, or the poor reaches inside and takes the object, the person acting is liable to prosecution but the other is not liable. (In fact, the passive participant never did do anything; the expression “not liable to prosecution” is inappropriate.) But if the rich person lifted the object, kept it moving all the time, and handed it to the poor who put it down, nobody is liable since nobody completed a forbidden act. The same naturally applies if the poor takes up a package and keeps it moving until the the owner of the house takes it and puts it down. In this case, the qualification as “not liable” is appropriate since both participants violated a Sabbath prohibition.
The question now arises whether the formulation “two which are four” always implies that the status of the two additional cases is different from the two original ones since in our Mishnah the same expression is used for oaths and Sabbath violations. Two which are four for liability and two which are four for no liability, or four for liability and four for no liability⁶S. Liebermann (Note 5) proposes to delete “four which are not liable” as induced by the preceding statement about “two and two” even though the text is common to all three versions at our disposal and it is difficult to assume that the redundant text was taught in the Galilean Academy. For the rules of the Sabbath, the case is simple and there is no redundancy. In the formulation of Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 there are four cases of liability, rich or poor taking out or rich or poor bringing in. There are also four cases where there is no liability, depending on who takes up the object first and who takes over, and what the direction of the move is. The question now is raised whether a similar case can be made for the first clause in Mishnah Ševuot 1:1.? Let us hear from the following: “There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” etc.⁷The statement of R. Abba later in this paragraph should be inserted here as noted in Note 5. While “here” in Šabbat the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah says so, “there are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds,” not because of liability⁸Rebbi Yose disagrees with R. Abba. Since everybody agrees that there are four cases which trigger a liability for oaths, the fact that the statement about Sabbath is formulated in the same Mishnah and in parallel form implies the same meaning in both clauses. Since Note 7 shows that Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations.? And similarly, “there are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds,” because there is liability⁸Rebbi Yose disagrees with R. Abba. Since everybody agrees that there are four cases which trigger a liability for oaths, the fact that the statement about Sabbath is formulated in the same Mishnah and in parallel form implies the same meaning in both clauses. Since Note 7 shows that Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 enumerates four cases of liability, there is no obstacle to reading the Sabbath clause in parallel to the oath clause. It is shown later in the paragraph that there are explicit verses only to forbid export; the parallel prohibitions of import are rabbinic interpretations.. ⁷The statement of R. Abba later in this paragraph should be inserted here as noted in Note 5. While “here” in Šabbat the Mishnah itself explains that there are two cases of liability and two of no liability, the situation in Ševuot is different; all four cases trigger the obligation of a sacrifice for inadvertent infraction and punishment for intentional infraction in the presence of witnesses. Rebbi Abba said, there all are about liability, but here we come to state both liability and no liability. This implies four of liability and four of no liability. But did we not state, the doors of the Temple hall were two which are four⁹This baraita refers to Mishnah Middot 4:1 which explains that the entrance gate to the Temple hall was built in the manner of a city gate, a thick wall closed by an outer double door opening to the outside and an inner two-winged door opening to the inside. The expression “two doors which are four” is simply the description of the structure of the building.? Can you say, liability and no liability¹⁰This is inappropriate here.? Should we state twelve cases of no liability¹¹Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 counts four actions for which one is liable (complete actions, export and import for the rich person, export and import for the poor.) Then it counts four cases for which one is not liable, but since for any incomplete action one is not liable one could consider the possibility that the poor man reaches into the house, lifts the object which the rich then takes up and deposits on the outside. A similar convoluted action is possible for import; two actions for two actors each result in four non-liabilities.? We come to state cases of no liability which correspond to cases of no liability¹²Only those cases are counted where a direct action, resulting in liability if executed by one person, imply no liability if done by two. The convoluted cases of Note 11 are not noted since they do not correspond to a case that could involve only one actor.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada¹³In Šabbat: bar Abba. In the Babli, Šabbat 2b/3a, the argument is by Babylonian Amoraim. said, what is this “no liability” which we stated here? Permitted¹⁴The expression “no liability” is used in Mishnah Šabbat 1:1 in two completely different senses. As noted earlier (Note 5) if the complete action is performed by one person, the other one is passive and does not infringe on any law; at all times everything he does is permitted. But if the action is completed by two persons, both sinned. While they are not liable for a sacrifice or punishment, they require repentance and Heaven’s forgiveness.! Rebbi Yose said, the poor man and the rich man are one but the Sages counted them as two. Exporting or importing are two but the Sages counted them as one¹⁵Since both the rich man and the poor are described as executing the same actions, there is no intrinsic reason why they should be considered separately. It only is to emphasize the importance of the rules of transporting on the Sabbath. But, as will be shown in the sequel, not to bring out is a direct biblical command while not bringing into a private domain from the public one is an inference; the rules of importing must be transferred from those of exporting.
In Šabbat, the Genizah text and the first hand of the Leiden ms. read “Exporting or importing are one but the Sages counted them as two” but as S. Liebermann (Note 5) has noted, the reading here is supported by early Medieval quotes.. Exporting on the Sabbath does not include importing; if one exports from a domain this does not include importing¹⁶Since there are no verses spelling out the prohibition of carrying from the public domain to a private one.. If one who exports from one domain to the other, does this not include the one who imports¹⁷Importing into one domain is exporting from another. There seems to be no reason to make a distinction between domains (even though there is a big difference since in a private domain one may carry without restriction but in the public domain only for a distance of less than 4 cubits.)? In addition, from what Rebbi Yasa said in the name if Rebbi Joḥanan: Somebody who imports half the size of a dried fig and exports half the size of a dried fig is liable¹⁸While any transport from one domain to another on the Sabbath is sinful, it creates a liability only if the object is of a minimal size (Šabbat Chapters 7–8). For solid food, the minimum is fixed at the volume of a dried fig. The two actions mentioned will combine if there was continuous awareness of the Sabbath prohibitions.. And from where that exporting is called work? Rebbi Samuel in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: “Moses ordered, they made a public proclamation in the camp,¹⁹Ex. 36:6. The verse speaks of donations for the construction of the Tabernacle. The Babli (Šabbat 96b) finds a tenuous connection with the Sabbath by a gezerah šawah, concurrent use of words.” etc. The people refrained from taking objects out from their houses to give them to the collectors, who also did not take out anything from them to import into the office. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Aḥa understood it from the following: “do not bring out any load from your houses on the Sabbath day, and perform no work.²⁰Jer. 17:22. While prophetic books are not sources of law, they are authentic evidence for the understanding of the Torah by the teachers of past generations. It is proved that in the understanding of Jeremiah (whose student Barukh ben Neriah is credited with bringing the study of Torah to Babylonia) moving objects from a private to the public domain is a violation of biblical law. This supports the interpretation of Ex. 36:6.”

Shemaya and Avatalyon received from them. Shemaya would say: Love work, hate power, and do not become too familiar with the authorities.
Love work.” How so? This teaches us that a person should love work, and not hate work. For just as the Torah was given in a covenant, so work was given in a covenant, as it says (Exodus 20:10), “For six days you shall labor and do all your work, and the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Eternal your God.” Rabbi Akiva would say: Sometimes a person labors and escapes death, and sometimes a person does not labor and becomes liable for death from Heaven. How so? Say a person sat around all week and did no labor, and then on the eve of the Sabbath he had nothing to eat. But he had money that had been designated [to the Temple] in his house. So he took from this and ate, and thus became liable to death from Heaven. However, if he had labored on the building of the Temple, then even though they paid him in money designated for the Temple and he took that money and used it for food, he would still escape the death penalty.
Rabbi Dostai would say: How do we know that if someone did no work all six days, he will end up doing work on the seventh? For, see, if he sat all the days of the week and did no work, and then on the eve of the Sabbath he had nothing to eat, he would then go out looking, and end up seized by conscription officers, who would grab him by the collar and force him to do on the Sabbath all the work that he did not do for six days.
Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: Even Adam did not taste anything until he worked, as it says (Genesis 2:15–16), “And God placed him in the garden, to work it and guard it”; and then [it says (verse 17)], “From every tree of the garden you may certainly eat.”
Rabbi Tarfon would say: Even the Holy Blessed One did not rest His presence upon Israel until they had done work, as it says (Exodus 25:5), “Make Me a Sanctuary, and I will dwell among them.”
Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira would say: If someone who has no work to do, what should he do? If he has a dilapidated yard or field, he should go and work on them, as it says (Exodus 20:10), “Six days you shall labor and do all your work.” What do we learn from the phrase, “do all your work”? That even someone who has dilapidated yards or fields should work on them.
Rabbi Yosei HaGalili would say: A person dies only because of idleness, as it says (Genesis 49:33), “And he expired [or: exhausted himself], and so was gathered to his people.”¹It does not say that Jacob “died,” only that he was “gathered to his people.” Rabbi Yosei is reading that as a reward for “exhausting himself,” i.e., not being idle. And see, if someone is pushed and falls over on his own craftwork and dies, we know his death was because of idleness. And if he was standing on the top of the roof, the top of a palace, or the top of any building, or at the edge of the river, and he fell and died, we know his death was because of idleness.
All this we know to be true for men. And how do we know it is also true for women? For it says (Exodus 36:6), “Let no man or woman do any more work for the donations to the Sanctuary.” And how do we know it is true also for children? For it says (there), “So the people stopped bringing.”
Rabbi Natan said: When Moses was carrying out the work of the Tabernacle, he did not want to take direction from the chiefs of Israel. So the chiefs of Israel sat there quietly and said: Perhaps now Moses will need our help. When they heard the announcement in the camp that said enough work had been done, they said: Alas, we have not participated at all in the work of the Tabernacle! So they got up and added a great thing by themselves, as it says (Exodus 35:27), “And the chiefs brought the shoham stones [for the breastplate of the high priest].”