וּבַחֲרֹ֥שֶׁת אֶ֛בֶן לְמַלֹּ֖את וּבַחֲרֹ֣שֶׁת עֵ֑ץ לַעֲשׂ֖וֹת בְּכָל־מְלֶ֥אכֶת מַחֲשָֽׁבֶת׃
и в резании камней для посадки, и в резьбе по дереву, чтобы выполнять все виды умелого мастерства.
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The one who takes out is not liable until he put it down51As explained in Note 1, the Sabbath is desecrated only by a complete action, lifting up, transporting from one domain to another, and depositing. If the last act is missing, there was no punishable desecration.
The tradent R. Yose is the fifth generation Amora.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down52This is a necessary clarification of the preceding statement. Not only must there be a complete action, but all three parts must be executed with the intent to perform the action. In Ex. 35, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath is repeated (vv. 1–3) as part of the commandment to build the Tabernacle (vv. 4–35). In 35:33, the construction of the Tabernacle is described as “thinking work”. It is concluded that only “thinking work” is punishable (criminally or by a sacrifice) as desecration of the Sabbath. In the special case of transporting, there is desecration only if the three parts are done with compatible intent, if the lifting up was intended to be followed by a putting down.. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down53It is perfectly legitimate to take food to eat in the domain where it was at the start of the Sabbath. If the first stage of a transport was executed in a perfectly permitted way based on a true thought, it never can become the first leg in a criminal transport. While the change of intent and the following action were forbidden and sinful, there can be no criminal or sacrificial liability attached to them. (As statement of R. Joḥanan himself, Babli 5b, Eruvin 20b, Ketubot 31a).. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated54An anonymous baraita following the statement here attributed to R. Yose is Tosephta 9:11(ed. S. Liebermann); the first part Babli 80a.
Since in the public domain one is only permitted to move things by a distance of less than four cubits, things farther away are as in two different domains. If each transport was less that a minimal amount, the actions cannot be combined.: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose39The Tanna, ben Ḥalafta, the greatest authority of the fourth generation of Tannaim. said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down56Later in the Halakhah and in the Babli (5b, 91b, Eruvin 98a, Ketubot 31b) this opinion is attributed to Ben Azzai, a generation before R. Yose. It is agreed by everybody that standing still while transporting an object is legally putting it down, not on the ground but on the static person. This is the same as depositing the object on a pillar. R. Yose holds that a slow motion such as walking is the equivalent of standing still for a negligible time at many places. An action which does not result in instant deposition is throwing.
According to R. Yose, if the second object ever was within 4 cubits of the place where the first was deposited, the two actions combine for liability, even if the second was ultimately deposited somewhere else.. Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability57If the object is considered deposited the moment it was taken out of a private domain by a walking person, then any subsequent motion is a new transport. Since R. Yose (Note 44) only considers combining transports if they originate and terminate in the same domains, the fact that later the second object was transported over the first should be irrelevant.. Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door]58Added from G and ג., as it was stated41Since transporting has three components, lifting in one domain, removing to another, and depositing in the other domain, for R. Yose they cannot be combined unless all three components are the same (within one period of oblivion.), “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first59For the anonymous Tanna the final place of deposit determines liability; for R. Yose there is no liability if the two paths never were within 4 cubits of one another..
The tradent R. Yose is the fifth generation Amora.. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Unless he take up and put down. Rebbi Zeˋira required, unless he take it up with the intention to put it down52This is a necessary clarification of the preceding statement. Not only must there be a complete action, but all three parts must be executed with the intent to perform the action. In Ex. 35, the prohibition of work on the Sabbath is repeated (vv. 1–3) as part of the commandment to build the Tabernacle (vv. 4–35). In 35:33, the construction of the Tabernacle is described as “thinking work”. It is concluded that only “thinking work” is punishable (criminally or by a sacrifice) as desecration of the Sabbath. In the special case of transporting, there is desecration only if the three parts are done with compatible intent, if the lifting up was intended to be followed by a putting down.. Not if he lifted it to eat and then changed his mind to put it down53It is perfectly legitimate to take food to eat in the domain where it was at the start of the Sabbath. If the first stage of a transport was executed in a perfectly permitted way based on a true thought, it never can become the first leg in a criminal transport. While the change of intent and the following action were forbidden and sinful, there can be no criminal or sacrificial liability attached to them. (As statement of R. Joḥanan himself, Babli 5b, Eruvin 20b, Ketubot 31a).. What Rebbi Joḥanan said does not follow Rebbi Yose, as it was stated54An anonymous baraita following the statement here attributed to R. Yose is Tosephta 9:11(ed. S. Liebermann); the first part Babli 80a.
Since in the public domain one is only permitted to move things by a distance of less than four cubits, things farther away are as in two different domains. If each transport was less that a minimal amount, the actions cannot be combined.: “If he took out half the volume of a dried fig and put it down, and then took out another volume of half a dried fig. If he put it down within four cubits of the first piece he is liable, otherwise he is not liable. Rebbi Yose39The Tanna, ben Ḥalafta, the greatest authority of the fourth generation of Tannaim. said, if he transported it over it, he is liable, otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down56Later in the Halakhah and in the Babli (5b, 91b, Eruvin 98a, Ketubot 31b) this opinion is attributed to Ben Azzai, a generation before R. Yose. It is agreed by everybody that standing still while transporting an object is legally putting it down, not on the ground but on the static person. This is the same as depositing the object on a pillar. R. Yose holds that a slow motion such as walking is the equivalent of standing still for a negligible time at many places. An action which does not result in instant deposition is throwing.
According to R. Yose, if the second object ever was within 4 cubits of the place where the first was deposited, the two actions combine for liability, even if the second was ultimately deposited somewhere else.. Just as Rebbi Yose considers the person walking as if he was putting down for liability so he considers the person walking as if he was putting down for non-liability. When he took it out he is considered having put it down; then he should be free from liability57If the object is considered deposited the moment it was taken out of a private domain by a walking person, then any subsequent motion is a new transport. Since R. Yose (Note 44) only considers combining transports if they originate and terminate in the same domains, the fact that later the second object was transported over the first should be irrelevant.. Explain it if it was put down within four cubits [of the door]58Added from G and ג., as it was stated41Since transporting has three components, lifting in one domain, removing to another, and depositing in the other domain, for R. Yose they cannot be combined unless all three components are the same (within one period of oblivion.), “otherwise he is not liable.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappaeus said, explain it if the door was five cubits wide and he brought one out on this side, the other on the other side. Then the second was not taken out within four cubits of the first59For the anonymous Tanna the final place of deposit determines liability; for R. Yose there is no liability if the two paths never were within 4 cubits of one another..
Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim
It was stated167Also quoted in Babli Eruvin 77a, Sabbath 123a. The opinion of R. Eleazar ben Taddeus is not found in Eruvin.: “If unripe figs that one hid in ṭevel168Since ṭevel, produce from which no heave was taken, may not be consumed on the Sabbath, it may not be moved on the Sabbath. (Cf. Peah, Chapter 1, Note 303. The Babli reads תבן, “straw”; cf. יפה ענים on Šabbat 123a.) The figs are covered by grain to hasten the ripening process. or a flat pita that one hid in glowing charcoal169As Rashi points out in the Babli, the charcoal was glowing Friday evening at the start of the Sabbath but now it is cold. Otherwise, moving the coals would increase the flow of oxygen to the coals and stir the fire; this would be a transgression of a Biblical commandment and R. Simeon could not permit it. Since the coals could not be moved when Sabbath started, they cannot be moved during the entire Sabbath. were partially uncovered they may be taken on the Sabbath, otherwise they may not be taken on the Sabbath170If the desired piece is not visible, one must intentionally move the material serving as cover, and this is forbidden. But if some pieces are uncovered, they may be taken; ṭevel or coals fall into the void by gravity, not by intentional moving.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus171A Tanna of whom only this baraita is known. said, in either case he pushes in a spear or a knife and lifts them out172If one uses a knife, he has the intention only to move what is permitted; in contrast, if one has to remove the cover to get to the figs, he would have to move things which he is forbidden to move. Rebbi Simeon always holds that unintended side effects of an action are not forbidden on the Sabbath since only מלאכת מחשבת “deliberate action” (Ex. 35:33) is forbidden..” The statement of Rebbi Eleazar ben Taddeus turns out following Rebbi Simeon, as we have stated173A slightly different version appears in Babli Šabbat 22a (and 5 other places); a shorter version is in Tosephta Yom Ṭov 2:18.: “One should not drag174On a dirt floor or outside. In the Babli, the meaning is made clearer: “One may drag … if he does not intend to make a groove.” In practical terms, this means that one may not drag the chair on the ground if the resulting groove is of any use. a chair, or a bed, or an easy chair because one makes a groove, but Rebbi Simeon permits it.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Huna, Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Illaï: The Sages admit to Rebbi Simeon that a chair whose legs are stuck in mud one is permitted to move175In this case, the groove will disappear by itself in the soft mud; it was not “made” since it has no permanence.. And just as you say that one is permitted to move it, so one is permitted to bring it back. Rebbi Yose said, we also have stated176In our Mishnah. (The language is slightly different from that of the Mishnah; it is influenced by Mishnah Šabbat 17:1: “All vessels may be taken on the Sabbath.”): “They may be taken on the Sabbath.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, that is from Rebbi Simeon. But we have stated177Again in the Mishnah. The problem is that R. Simeon declares in Mishnah Ševiït 9:1 that “all aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year is permitted except for that of cabbage,” because the aftergrowth is not usually harvested. This means that aftergrowth may be traded and unlike food harvested in the Sabbatical year, it does not have to be disposed of once there is no more food for the wild animals on the fields. Since any growth of the hidden turnips and radishes can be compared to aftergrowth, there is no way one could possibly worry about the growth in the Sabbatical year, according to R. Simeon. If one cannot worry, then it would be superfluous for R. Simeon to mention that one does not have to worry and he cannot be the author of the Mishnah.
Babli Pesaḥim 51b and a few Mishnah sources have R. Simeon stating that “all aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year is forbidden except for that of cabbage.” This reading contradicts the position of the Yerushalrni and will be discussed in Mishnah Ševiït 9:1.: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year178The Biblical precept is that the produce of the Sabbatical year is to be eaten by man or animal (Lev. 25.6) but may not be used for industrial purposes, nor may it be left to decay. Holdover turnips and radishes from the previous year may be used for industrial purposes in the Sabbatical year.. Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!
Babli Pesaḥim 51b and a few Mishnah sources have R. Simeon stating that “all aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year is forbidden except for that of cabbage.” This reading contradicts the position of the Yerushalrni and will be discussed in Mishnah Ševiït 9:1.: “The Sabbatical year!” Can you say that “the Sabbatical year” follows Rebbi Simeon? Explain “the Sabbatical year!” For Rebbi Simeon permits the aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, and here he says so? Even though Rebbi Simeon permits aftergrowth of the Sabbatical year, he still holds it subject to the holiness of the Sabbatical year178The Biblical precept is that the produce of the Sabbatical year is to be eaten by man or animal (Lev. 25.6) but may not be used for industrial purposes, nor may it be left to decay. Holdover turnips and radishes from the previous year may be used for industrial purposes in the Sabbatical year.. Here also, he worries neither about the Sabbatical year nor about the holiness of the Sabbatical year!