Талмуд к Шмот 20:10
וְי֙וֹם֙ הַשְּׁבִיעִ֔֜י שַׁבָּ֖֣ת ׀ לַיהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֑֗יךָ לֹֽ֣א־תַעֲשֶׂ֣֨ה כָל־מְלָאכָ֡֜ה אַתָּ֣ה ׀ וּבִנְךָֽ֣־וּ֠בִתֶּ֗ךָ עַבְדְּךָ֤֨ וַאֲמָֽתְךָ֜֙ וּבְהֶמְתֶּ֔֗ךָ וְגֵרְךָ֖֙ אֲשֶׁ֥֣ר בִּשְׁעָרֶֽ֔יךָ
а седьмой день - суббота Господу Богу твоему; в нем ты не будешь делать никакой работы, ни ты, ни сын твой, ни дочь твоя, ни слуга твой, ни служанка твоя, ни скот твой, ни странник твой, который в воротах твоих;
Jerusalem Talmud Nazir
7This paragraph and the next are from Šabbat 7:2 (9c, 1. 11 ff.), as will be seen in the commentary. The variant readings refer to that text. The introductory section is from Šabbat 7:1 (9a, 1. 20–24), the one variant in spelling there is noted by: א.
Mishnah Šabbat 7:2 states that on the Sabbath, 39 different activities are forbidden. This means that a person who violates the Sabbath unintentionally may be liable for up to 39 purification sacrifices. The question then appears whether in other cases multiple sacrifices also are necessary. Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting8He committed idolatry but forgot that sacrificing, burning incense, and pouring libations are forbidden as idolatrous actions, or he was conscious that these acts are part of idolatry but forgot that idolatry was forbidden., he is guilty for each action separately9In the Babli, Šabbat 72a, Sanhedrin 62a, the positions of R. Joḥanan and R. Zakkai are switched.. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands10Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan. and were broken. He is guilty only once! 11The sentences in braces are unintelligible here; they refer to and are quoted from a discussion in Šabbat 7:1 (fol. 9a) which deals with the introductory sentence to the chapter of purification offerings, Lev. 4:2: “Speak to the Children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally against any commandments of the Eternal that are not to be broken, and did from any one, from those.” This implies that sometimes a purification offering is due for violating one prohibition, and sometimes one sacrifice is valid for a number of those. In general, the answer depends on what was unintentional. If a person does not know that today is Sabbath, for all he does wrong he owes one sacrifice. If he knows that it is Sabbath but forgot what is forbidden, he owes one sacrifice for each category of forbidden work. The problem is first whether this principle also applies to idolatry, the sacrifice for which is not described in Lev. 4 but in Num. 15:22–26, and second what is the status of the details enumerated in the Second Commandment, in particular why a detail, “do not prostrate yourself before them” is mentioned before the principle “do not serve them”.{Before he broke12The reference to “breaking” here is a continuation of R. Joḥanan’s criticism of Rav Zakkai (who in the Babli is Rebbi Zakkai): If the Second Commandment is considered a unit, there are no “those” to be applied to idolatry. If all activities mentioned are separate rules, how can one bring only one sacrifice? in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work13Ex. 20:10.,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,14Ex. 35:3.” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual15A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. Also here17Regarding idolatry.: “Do not worship them,18Ex. 20:5.” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,18Ex. 20:5.” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. He answered19R. Ze‘ira, answering R. Abba bar Mamal. The translation follows the text in Šabbat.: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail20In the same sentence. If “prostrating” had been mentioned after “serving”, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”.. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”21Ex. 34:14.? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar22Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex. 20:5.. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle23Therefore, the 9th principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle.. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether 24Text from Šabbat.[He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle25This really is the case for the Second Comandment.]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven26The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment..
Mishnah Šabbat 7:2 states that on the Sabbath, 39 different activities are forbidden. This means that a person who violates the Sabbath unintentionally may be liable for up to 39 purification sacrifices. The question then appears whether in other cases multiple sacrifices also are necessary. Rav Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting8He committed idolatry but forgot that sacrificing, burning incense, and pouring libations are forbidden as idolatrous actions, or he was conscious that these acts are part of idolatry but forgot that idolatry was forbidden., he is guilty for each action separately9In the Babli, Šabbat 72a, Sanhedrin 62a, the positions of R. Joḥanan and R. Zakkai are switched.. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands10Tigris, Euphrates, and Jordan. and were broken. He is guilty only once! 11The sentences in braces are unintelligible here; they refer to and are quoted from a discussion in Šabbat 7:1 (fol. 9a) which deals with the introductory sentence to the chapter of purification offerings, Lev. 4:2: “Speak to the Children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally against any commandments of the Eternal that are not to be broken, and did from any one, from those.” This implies that sometimes a purification offering is due for violating one prohibition, and sometimes one sacrifice is valid for a number of those. In general, the answer depends on what was unintentional. If a person does not know that today is Sabbath, for all he does wrong he owes one sacrifice. If he knows that it is Sabbath but forgot what is forbidden, he owes one sacrifice for each category of forbidden work. The problem is first whether this principle also applies to idolatry, the sacrifice for which is not described in Lev. 4 but in Num. 15:22–26, and second what is the status of the details enumerated in the Second Commandment, in particular why a detail, “do not prostrate yourself before them” is mentioned before the principle “do not serve them”.{Before he broke12The reference to “breaking” here is a continuation of R. Joḥanan’s criticism of Rav Zakkai (who in the Babli is Rebbi Zakkai): If the Second Commandment is considered a unit, there are no “those” to be applied to idolatry. If all activities mentioned are separate rules, how can one bring only one sacrifice? in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Should he not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: “Do not perform any work13Ex. 20:10.,” principle. “Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places,14Ex. 35:3.” a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual15A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. Also here17Regarding idolatry.: “Do not worship them,18Ex. 20:5.” a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself,18Ex. 20:5.” a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which alone one is guilty16Needs a separate sacrifice. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli, Šabbat 70a, appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qama 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menahem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים לתולדות התפתחותה של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original Tannaïtic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions.. He answered19R. Ze‘ira, answering R. Abba bar Mamal. The translation follows the text in Šabbat.: For the Sabbath, he mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail20In the same sentence. If “prostrating” had been mentioned after “serving”, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”.. He retorted: Is it not witten: “Do not prostrate yourself before another power”21Ex. 34:14.? He did not state the principle and the detail at the same spot! He said, since you do not infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar22Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex. 20:5.. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle23Therefore, the 9th principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle.. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether 24Text from Šabbat.[He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle25This really is the case for the Second Comandment.]; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He was indeterminate regarding its worship but detailed the worship of Heaven26The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
Is there no difference, whether according to his25As follows from the sequel, the question is about interpreting R. Aqiba’s position, where there is a dispute between Rebbi (referred to as “he”) and the majority of the rabbis of his generation. opinion or that of the rabbis, only if it came to rest from a public domain into a private domain? In Rebbi’s opinion, even if it did not come to rest26Since the airspace over a private domain belongs to that domain up to an indeterminate height, Rebbi considers the entry of an object into this airspace as valid delivery; the rabbis read the statement that “a person’s courtyard acquires for him” to refer only to the soil, not to the airspace over it. The disagreement essentially refers to matters of civil law; its applicability to the laws of the Sabbath is questioned later in the paragraph. (Šabbat 1 Note 107, Babli 4a, 5a, Giṭṭin 79a).
In the Babli (4b) it is stated that one who threw from a public domain to another over a private domain is not liable for the Sages but twice liable for Rebbi. Since the Yerushalmi does not quote this statement, it cannot be presupposed here.; in the rabbis’ opinion, only if it came to rest. For Rebbi Abba bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Rebbi declared liable only for a private domain which was roofed27Babli 4a/5b. An object is delivered into a courtyard only if it comes to rest on the ground. But delivery to a house is effected the moment the object is in the house since even the air in the house is considered soil. For this rule, “house” is any covered place even if it has no walls.. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies, even if it was not roofed, 28From here on the text is copied from Giṭṭin 8:3 (ט, Notes 54–57). The topic of divorce at the end is referred to as “here”. for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions29This refers to the last sentence in Mishnah Giṭṭin 8:3. If the husband throws the bill of divorce from his roof to her courtyard, it is possible to say that the bill was delivered the moment it cleared the roof only if the walls of the wife’s courtyard are higher than the husband’s roof. Otherwise it would be legally delivered only if the bill fell below the level of the courtyard walls. (The same argument is quoted in Samuel’s name in the Babli, Giṭṭin 79a.). Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up27Babli 4a/5b. An object is delivered into a courtyard only if it comes to rest on the ground. But delivery to a house is effected the moment the object is in the house since even the air in the house is considered soil. For this rule, “house” is any covered place even if it has no walls.? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion30The Babli agrees, Giṭṭin 79a, that the delivery of bills of divorce is governed by the rules of property rights, not those of the Sabbath.. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed?31For the rules of the Sabbath. What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Ila said, about the Sabbath it is written: You shall not do any work32Ex. 20:10.; it may make itself automatically34Deut. 24:1.. But here he shall deliver into her hand34Deut. 24:1., into her domain.
In the Babli (4b) it is stated that one who threw from a public domain to another over a private domain is not liable for the Sages but twice liable for Rebbi. Since the Yerushalmi does not quote this statement, it cannot be presupposed here.; in the rabbis’ opinion, only if it came to rest. For Rebbi Abba bar Ḥuna said in the name of Rav: Rebbi declared liable only for a private domain which was roofed27Babli 4a/5b. An object is delivered into a courtyard only if it comes to rest on the ground. But delivery to a house is effected the moment the object is in the house since even the air in the house is considered soil. For this rule, “house” is any covered place even if it has no walls.. The word of Rebbi Joḥanan implies, even if it was not roofed, 28From here on the text is copied from Giṭṭin 8:3 (ט, Notes 54–57). The topic of divorce at the end is referred to as “here”. for Rebbi Immi said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Only if it descended to within the partitions29This refers to the last sentence in Mishnah Giṭṭin 8:3. If the husband throws the bill of divorce from his roof to her courtyard, it is possible to say that the bill was delivered the moment it cleared the roof only if the walls of the wife’s courtyard are higher than the husband’s roof. Otherwise it would be legally delivered only if the bill fell below the level of the courtyard walls. (The same argument is quoted in Samuel’s name in the Babli, Giṭṭin 79a.). Rebbi Immi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does the Mishnah follow Rebbi, since Rebbi considers partitions as solidly filled up27Babli 4a/5b. An object is delivered into a courtyard only if it comes to rest on the ground. But delivery to a house is effected the moment the object is in the house since even the air in the house is considered soil. For this rule, “house” is any covered place even if it has no walls.? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion30The Babli agrees, Giṭṭin 79a, that the delivery of bills of divorce is governed by the rules of property rights, not those of the Sabbath.. Could one not object that Rebbi said, if it is roofed? And you say, it is not roofed?31For the rules of the Sabbath. What is the difference between bills of divorce and the Sabbath? Rebbi Ila said, about the Sabbath it is written: You shall not do any work32Ex. 20:10.; it may make itself automatically34Deut. 24:1.. But here he shall deliver into her hand34Deut. 24:1., into her domain.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
“Nor with oil to be burned7Olive oil given as heave to a Cohen which became impure and therefore cannot be consumed. The Cohen may use it as fuel. But since it is holy, it is subject to the (rabbinic) rule that sancta may not be burned on a day on which defective sacrifices may not be burned, i. e., Sabbath or holiday..” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is forbidden to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath47Since impure heave, which belongs to the class of disabled sancta, may not be burned on the Sabbath. Babli 23b, Menaḥot 46b.. But have we not stated48Mishnah 1:15 (Notes 22,23).: “One starts a fire at the fire place in the heating chamber, but outside the Temple only if the fire has started burning on most of the logs.” Rebbi Yose said, it is written about the Sabbath, do not do any work49Ex. 20:10. Here starts a new Genizah leaf, Ginzberg p. 71 (G).; it is done automatically. But here the Torah said that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, not to speak of the Sabbath. What did you see that you said so? 50Ex. 12:10. The mention of two “mornings” implies that different times are implied. Babli 24b, 133a, Pesaḥim 83b, Temurah 4b. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 6, end, dR. Simeon benYoḥai Bo p. 14.You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire. After two mornings, one the morning of the 15th and the other the morning of the 16th. And it is written, what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day51Lev. 7:17. The sacrifice may be eaten for two days and the intervening night..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy